Reg Prescott

In response to Strange (post # 50): 1. "You appear to be arguing against a strawman here. No one is supporting the simplistic model that you propose (you can tell you are making a stawman argument when all those attacking you are in agreement with you." Not at all. I'm not proposing any models. I'm attacking the model you explicitly condone with your "Exactly" comment at the top of your post # 3. As I pointed out earlier, you've backpedalled time and time again throughout the thread. I can only hope that other members will judge impartially. 2. "So it sounds as if the earlier characterization of you arguing from a position of ignorance was accurate after all." I can live with that. There's a great deal I don't know, friend. I presume you're the same. 3. "But of course it isn't because it works (is "true") for a large domain of problems" This is another point you continuously fail to grasp, I'm afraid. A theory working does not entail that is true. We infer at our peril from a theory yielding accurate predictions to its truth, i.e. its offering a (more or less) accurate representation of reality. The instrumental efficacy of a theory and its truth are two different matters, not to be confused. Consider, for example, (not necessarily true to life, but just for illustrative purposes) the case of navigational charts produced based on a Ptolemaic-like model of the cosmos with the heavens spinning around a static Earth every 24 hour vs those based on a Copernican-like model with the heavens static and the Earth rotating on its axis every 24 hours. Both theories might work equally well; they both get you where you want to go. But who among us would claim they are equally true, or truth-like? Presumably there is only one way things really are out there. 4. "In your fantasy version of science, this would mean that Newtonian gravity would be instantly discarded." ... and ... "There wasn't the silly "throw away the theory because one observation is contradictory" reaction that you argued for..." This is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. I'm offering no normative guidelines on what scientists ought to do. I am not arguing for any methodological rules. What I am doing, I hope, is pointing out that the over-simplistic methodology endorsed by others (yourself included; see 1. above) is inadequate to capture what scientists actually do do. 5. "You seem to only support that by expressing your opinions on what some scientists thought. Many of them from a period in the past when the common assumption probably was that science was an attempt to discover the truth." Once again you're moving the goalposts. What you originally said was (and I quote) "... science is not about "truth" but about models that work; .." (post 5) Would you now like to change this to "Science is not about truth these days"? Or perhaps "No scientist -- no, not even one -- since [enter date] has cared a jot about truth"? How, then, may I ask would our other members reply to a wayward Creationist, say, who wandered in and expressed his firmly held belief that evolutionary theory was a load of crap? How many among you, in all honesty, would tell him, "Don't worry, pal. Our evolutionary theory has nothing to do with truth. You're better to think of it as a model, or a useful fiction, that we use as a calculating device to .... erm, cure baldness (or whatever). It has nothing at all to do with the way things really are out there." * raises eyebrow * To Swansant : You said "It doesn't matter if you think QM is weird or not. It's a major part of physics, not some part tucked away in the corner." Why is everyone getting so knee-jerk defensive? My calling QM weird is not an insult. And I'm not the first person to say so. C'mon now! It's precisely because it's weird - or "counterintuitive", if you prefer -- that many have chosen to adopt an instrumental attitude towards it. Yourself included, evidently.

As requested by studiot, my responses to his post # 38... "What about the use of statistics in scientific testing?" I don't know "Would analysis of blood samples be included?" I don't know "What safe working load certification testing?" I know nothing about it "Is there any data on what distribution of testing activity between various motivations?" I haven't the foggiest "And what exactly is meant by 'scientific testing' "? That's what I was hoping might be explained. My complaint is that I often hear of a major theory -- evolutionary theory, say -- having been "thoroughly tested". I've no idea what sense to make of this which does not trivialize our use of the term "test" into some Kafka-esque farce. (Why didn't I past the "test"? Because we failed you) I was hoping those who speak of testing might specify the criteria under which a theory will fail one of these "tests" (we would need certain criteria, wouldn't we, if the "test" was not to be entirely arbitrary?). We've seen, I think, that Popper's criterion (mismatch been observation and theory) isn't up for the task. I don't believe anyone has offered any other criteria of a general nature, i.e., applicable to all theories. After that, I challenged what I took to be the manifestly false claims made by other posters along the lines of "Science has almost nothing to do with truth" and "Physics describes how things behave, not what they are." (see posts 5 and 40, for example). I was asked to support my challenge with evidence. That's what I've been trying to do lately. As for rules, I only joined the site a few days ago, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with them. I'm not trying to flaunt any. Let's hope I don't fail the test. Peace and love! ... a word or two from philosopher of biology, Elliott Sober, on the topic of testing: "Creationists often talk of 'testing evolutionary theory', and biologists sometimes talk this way as well. The context of their remarks sometimes reveals which specific proposition the authors have in mind, but often this is not the case. It is important to recognize that the phrase 'evolutionary theory' is too vague when the subject of testing is broached. There are a number of propositions that evolutionary biologists take seriously. The first step should be to specify which of these is to be the focus."

In reply to Strange's question in post # 37 ("OK. So what should they do, in your opinion? Ignore the evidence? Start again, de novo, with every new observation?") I have no interest in normative questions of what scientists should do. That's their business. All I care about is what they do do, and that we not mischaracterize this with overly simplistic models of scientific method. Some readers less familiar with the philosophical literature on the instrumentalism vs realism debate that we've been alluding to might enjoy the following essay by Stathos Phillos examining the arguments of Jean Perrin which were instrumental (sorry!) in convincing the scientific community that atoms and molecules were not simply useful fictions or abstractions as they'd hitherto been taken to, but that the correct attitude to adopt to them is one of realism -- these things are real, and our theories about them are true, or approximately so. http://users.uoa.gr/~psillos/PapersI/10-Perrin-JGPS.pdf A quote from page 340... QUOTE Indeed, between roughly 1908 and 1912, there was a massive shift in the scientific community in favour of the atomic conception of matter. The importance of Perrin’s own work is nicely captured by the following observation, made by Andre´ Lalande (1913, 366–367) in his annual essay on the philosophy in France for the year 1912: "M. Perrin, professor of physics at the Sorbonne, has described in Les Atomes, with his usual lucidity and vigour, the recent experiments (in which he has taken so considerable a part) which prove conclusively that the atoms are physical realities and not symbolical conceptions as people have for a long time been fond of calling them. By giving precise and concordant measures for their weights and dimensions, it is proved that bodies actually exist which, though invisible, are analogous at all points to those which we see and touch. An old philosophical question thus receives a positive solution." This brief and matter-of-fact announcement expressed a rather widely shared sentiment on the European continent that Perrin’s experimental work had clinched the issue of the reality of atoms. When Perrin received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1926, it was noted in the presentation speech by Professor C W Oseen that he ‘‘put a definite end to the long struggle regarding the real existence of molecules’’. UNQUOTE

I'm dismayed, although not entirely surprised, by the undisguised hostiliy of certain contributors. Nonetheless, a few points to ponder... Firstly, Strange asks : "Do you have any evidence to support this?" (post 35) I'd hate to have to go searching for quotes. An instrumentalist approach, as opposed to a realist one, is surely the exception rather the rule in science. You'll find intrumentalist leanings notably in the writings of Mach, Duhem, Poincare, Newton (vis-à-vis gravity), perhaps Bohr, and precious few others. These people held that the aim of science is, or should be, at least in certain areas, to produce theories that WORK; that is, to produce theories that act as useful tools for us to gain some measure of control over nature; but not to regard these theories (and the entities posited therein) as models or descriptions of reality itself. The scientific realist, on the other hand, wants more. She feels science ought to -- in addition to the aims of the instrumentalist -- produce theories that get the world right; to accurately describe the architecture and furniture of the universe; to produce theories that are true, or approximately so. As I say, quote mining would be tedious. The most obvious example that springs immediately to mind is that of Galileo's endorsement of the Copernican system - a literal (i.e., a realist) endorsement, not an instrumentalist one. His adversaries were quite clear that he'd be in no trouble at all as long as he championed the theory as merely a useful calculating instrument, an abstraction, and not a description of reality. Galileo wanted more than a calculating device; he wanted to get the cosmos right. That makes him a realist. It was interesting to hear from a physicist earlier (Swansont, post # 40). The attitude he descibes himself as adopting is precisely the instrumentalist one. But he's referring only to a very limited range of the scientific spectrum. As I said earlier (post 29), quote: "And there are people who adopt such an instrumentalist stance, particularly with respect to a weird theory such as quantum mechanics. Niels Bohr held a roughly instrumentalist position, I believe." If we stop focusing on quantum mechanics, ask yourself how many physicists are instrumentalists about atoms or electrons, say (They mainly were until the late 19th/early 20th century when they converted en masse to a realist stance -- with Ernst Mach bravely holding the fort for the instrumentalists, insisting that talk of atoms was not be taken literally). Do you also consider atoms to be merely an abstraction, Swansont? Ask yourself whether Stephen Hawking thinks black holes are real or simply a useful fiction. How many chemists hold that theories of molecules are nothing more than a useful calculating device? What about biologists and germs, say? And so finally, in response to your rudeness and apathy... "I don't know what that chip on your shoulder is all about, or what tripe lectures you have listened to that knock science, but I would advise that you re-read this entire thread and see that many of your points just come from a position of ignorance. That is fine - but listen and learn" - DrP, post # 36 "Which is one of the reasons I don't have much time for this sort of philosophical havering (so I wonder why I have spent so much time on it)." - Strange, post # 33 "I don't have an opinion either way. It is a meaningless question." - ibid ... etc., etc., ad nauseum, all I can say is that Galileo felt otherwise. So did Einstein. And a thousand other "ignorant" people.

@ Strange -- I'm having difficulty making sense of some of your comments regarding "truth" and "reality. For example, you tell us: "When this has been discussed on this and other forums, and on the radio, etc. I don't remember hearing any scientists say anything other than theories are just attempts to model reality, not attempts to uncover the truth. Given the way that theories are constantly being modified in the light of new evidence, it would be very short sighted for anyone to say "this theory is true". So, on your account, they're not aiming at discovering truth, just aiming at accurately modeling reality. What's the difference? Is truth not that property of statements/hypotheses which describes reality? The statement "The cat is on the mat" is true if and only if, in reality, the cat is on the mat. Right? And false otherwise. Likewise for the statement/hypothesis "The Earth is four billion years old." If not, which notion of truth do you have in mind? No offence intended, but it seems you can't make up your mind whether you're a realist or an instrumentalist. The realist would not necessarily claim that out best theories are perfect descriptions of truth/reality, that would be rash, but she would probably claim that they are close approximations. Science aims at truth on the realist account, but might never attain it. Do you hold that theories which posit black holes, quarks, species, fields, forces, genes, electrons, spacetime and all the rest should be read literally? That we are justified in believing (i.e. have good reason to believe) such entities actually exist with the properties and behavior specified by the theories? Or is it your position that all talk of such entities should be regarded as merely useful fictions, not to be taken literally, just as it would be a mistake to read "average taxpayer", say, in a theory of economics to mean that such a beast exists in reality? If it's the former, you're a realist; if the latter, an instrumentist. Statements about "the average taxpayer" are evidently just tools or instruments; not even candidates for truth or falsity. Later you write : "Towards more accurate descriptions, yes. Truth? I am not convinced." Towards more accurate descriptions of what? A description must be a description of something. Descriptions of an imaginary realm? Or descriptions of reality? i.e., a true description. And once again, you tell us : " It is not about truth, it is about better, more useful, more accurate descriptions." I can make no sense of this. Please explain. Descriptions of what? Are scientists doing their best to describe the real world or not?

Hi again to all. I've been reading through the thread again after being away for a couple of days. The train of the discussion was somewhat desultory, not surprising given that several of us in were posting in "real time", so I thought I'd try here to summarize my main gripe, which in a nutsell, is that certain members are advancing claims that are exaggerated, unjustifiable, or just plain false. The impression I get is that certain of my interlocutors may be working scientists themselves, and I have no misgivings at all regarding your own professtional expertise. At the same time, though, I also get the distinct impression that you're not well read, or possibly not read at all, in the philosophy of science -- no disgrace in that, of course, but your lack of knowledge in this area is leading you astray at times. Issues we've been addressing here -- the nature of scientific theories, realism vs instrumentalism, testing, evidence, confirmation, The Scientific Method (if there is such a thing), the goals of science, historical examination of individual cases -- are all standard fare in the philosophy of science. Overall, I sense that the notion you have of theory testing, and the dynamics of science in general, is largely Popperian, whether you're aware of it or not. Karl Popper tells us roughly that: 1. Scientists (do or should) test their hypotheses/theories by deductively deriving observational consequences (predictions) and comparing them against nature herself. 2. If there is a mismatch between the two, then the hypothesis/theory is falsified and must be rejected. (And on Youtube you'll find a fascinating old black and white clip of Richard Feynman teaching (his version of) The Scientific Method to a class. The method he's espousing is pure Popper.) Alas, I think it's fair to say that Popper's ideas are pretty thoroughly discredited these days, largely because of the work of his successors including Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, W.V.O. Quine, etc. I asked in the thread earlier whether other posters were familiar with the work of these men. No one replied. Quine shows that hypotheses/theories cannot be tested in isolation; Popper's ideas are too naive. There can be no simple contradiction between theory and evidence; auxiliary hypotheses are always implicated; and so when there is a prima facie mismatch between theory and evidence, assuming your evidence is unproblematic, then the problem might lie with your theory. But then again it might not, it might lie in the auxiliaries We all know that scientists can and do move on from an old theory to a new one, but we should not suppose this is because the old theory has been "falsified" in any logical sense. Meanwhile, Kuhn, Lakatos and others adduced voluminous evidence from the actual history of science, demonstrating that -- contra Popper and certain posters here (see Strange, top of post 3) -- it's simply not the case that scientists invariably reject a theory when there's an apparent contradiction between theory and evidence/observation. What's much more likely to happen is that they will try to fit the recalcitrant evidence into the paradigm. Examples of this are numerous and well known; we touched on one or two earlier -- the anomalous orbits of both Uranus and Mercury under Newtonian physics, Copericanism and stellar parallax (or lack thereof), natural selection and altruism, the positing of dark matter and dark energy to protect theory against falsification... in each case there was an apparent contradiction between theory and observation; in no case was the theory considered to be falsified and ignominiously dumped. In brief, if Popper's has indeed identified The Scientific Method, or the method of testing theories -- and this is the schema that my interlocutors here seem to endorse -- then scientists don't follow it, I'm afraid. What will happen out there in the real scientific community when observation appears to be at odds with theory? Well, they might indeed consider the theory falsified and abandon it. But then again, they might try to incorporate the troublesome evidence into the theory. Or if that fails, they might just leave it on the back burner (which is what happened in the case of the anomalous orbit of Mercury). In other words, your guess is as good as mine. So much for "testing". Given my remarks above, I'd invite both ajb and Strange to reread their opening posts. From hereon, I'd like to address what I regard to be some of the most dubious claims made by other posters in the last two pages. 1. "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work; ..." - Strange, post 5, and "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion" -- Strange, post 10 (and also ajb, post 15) This claim is manifestly false. The attitude you're characterizing here is that of instrumentalism, that is, the belief that scientific theories should be properly regarded as nothing more than calculating devices (black boxes); the belief that the entities posited within are simply useful fictions; that theories should not be taken to be describing reality. And there are people who adopt such an instrumentalist stance, particularly with respect to a weird theory such as quantum mechanics. Niels Bohr held a roughly instrumentalist position, I believe. Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - truth! Black holes, quarks, species, fields, forces, genes, etc, etc really do exist. It's true! Einstein was well known as being a realist, at least in his later years. For a person like him, and I would suspect the majority of working scientists too, science is ALL about truth. They are not engaged in fiction. They are in the business of getting the world right, or at least trying to. Why not ask a few? 2. "But this is, in the long run, corrected by the scientific method." - Strange, post 10 I don't believe there is such a thing as The Scientific Method, and a growing number of people who've devoted a great deal of time to examining these things agree with me. Meanwhile, those who do believe in it and write on the topic - from Bacon and Descartes to Newton, from Mill to Popper and Lakatos, and a hundred others -- can't agree what it is. Yet you simply assert it blithely. Of course, it's quite possible I could be wrong and there is indeed a universal method of science. How about you? Could you be wrong? I feel it's irresponsible to make claims of this kind as if the matter is not in dispute; as if you could not possibly be wrong -- the same way the religious folks do. 3. "If scientists did things like observe the anomalous orbit of Uranus and say "oh no, Newton got it all wrong; let's throw it all away and start again" then science would never progress." - Strange, post 28 Science progesses? Towards what? Truth? (in other words, increasingly accurate descriptions of reality) Once again, if this is what you mean, I don't think it should be simply asserted -- as the religious loonies invariably do with their own doctrine and dogma --as if the matter is wholly uncontroversial. Are you aware of the well known arguments (notably by Larry Laudan) which suggest, to me anyway, that convergent realism is an untenable position. How, for example, can theories in optics which have taken us from light as corpuscles, then to a wave of one kind or another, and now to photons, be said to be progress towards truth? How is a photon closer to truth than a corpuscle? And if science is not progressing towards more and more accurate descriptions of reality, what is it progressing towards?

"But this picking over the choice of words is slightly irrelevant to the point: you appeared to be saying, originally, that you thought scientists would ignore contradictory evidence to hang on to existing theories. That is obviously not what happens (or we wowuld never have any new theories!)" With all due respect, this IS obviously what happens. Have you read Thomas Kuhn? And I'm not attacking. Good theories are hard to come by. They shouldn't be dropped just like that. So the wise men say anyway.

Hmm ok. But I can pee further.

No, you said we have the correct explanation. Please don't make a fool of me. Thanks. "And what happened was that Einstein came up with GR which does correctly explain this" You in page 1 However, I'd like to wish you a blessed day. I hope I didn't come across as aggressive. I just felt some of your claims were unjustifiable. Please be well.

Strange, no offence, but I'm losing all respect for you. You keep backpedaling. I will say no more and trust that other members might adjudicate impartially.

It was another unjustifiable claim. Like the religious loonies make. Do we have the correct explanation? I say maybe. What say you?

The other poster said we have the "correct" explanation now. Take it up with him

Well, you edited an earlier post. I assume because you saw that you were blatantly contradicting yourself. "I said if theory does not agree with observation...." You said "Exactly" Right? Now you've changed your tune. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. Sorry, but you're being evasive. You said : "GR matches the observed data. That is what we expect scientific theories to do. Other new theories attempted at the time failed to do that. Other alternative theories of gravity since then have also failed to match all the evidence." Please answer the question I asked. How can you be sure we have the right explanation now? Let me remind you of your earlier remark : ""And what happened was that Einstein came up with GR which does correctly explain this." Focus on "correctly" Sorry, I haven't mastered the quote function yet. Gimme time LOL To ajb "So, in relation to the opening: we have a model of gravitation called general relativity" Why are you talking to me as if I'm a child? Sorry, all my posts have ended up in the same, erm, entity. Not good for coherency. Makes me look kinda stoopid. LOL I'm sure it's my fault.

"Evidence that traits are not inherited. Or evidence that there are no new sources of variation in a population. Or evidence that no variants in the population are more or less successful at surviving or breeding. (I can't think of much else. But if you ask in the appropriate forum you will probably get a much better answer.)" I see. And if that happens, we can expect biologists around the world to dump the theory tomorrow and twiddle their thumbs? And are you speaking on their behalf?

and with no offence intended, but with regards "And what happened was that Einstein came up with GR which does correctly explain this." Well, we all thought previous theories explained things. How can you be sure we have "correctly" explained it now? Sorry, but your claim is patently absurd. Sorry, I'm new here. And I see the mods posting things. I mean no offence to anyone. I'd just like to discuss these things rationally. You can rest assured I will not be abusive. I would also argue there is no such thing that can be properly referred to as "The Scientific Method", but perhaps we'll save that for another day LOL.. Don't ban my sorry ass now, nice people.

Sorry, friend, I posted before I read your latest one. Please also explain what would demonstrate a theory to be "completely wrong"? Are you familiar with the Duhem-Quine thesis? If you'd like to refute it, I'm all ears. And peace and love

You see, this is what I find very worrying. And I may get banned for saying this, but perhaps a few others might agree with me. I feel that scientists and science afficionados take a stance of almost religious zealotry when they feel that their beloved science is "under attack", the same way the religious loonies do when they suspect their pet prophet has been slighted. An attitude of "must defend, must defend, no matter if I'm right or wrong" Yes, as you said, science works. And I have the utmost respect for good people working hard to improve the human lot. But that wasn't the issue. Working is not the same as being true. Ptolemaic cosmology works very well too. Do you think it's true? I'm not attacking science. Only the exaggerated and manifestly absurd claims often made on its behalf. Please explain what "test" would result in evolutionary biologists, say, around the world abandoning their theory en masse tomorrow. No, I'm not a Creationist nut.

The examples are well known. Mercury (or Uranus) doesn't behave as Newtonian physics might lead us to expect. Do scientists thereby drop the theory? You answer. If you'd like more examples, gimme a shout.

Just a useless, worthless comment on "testing" Now, in a driving test one either passes or fails. In a school test, we might get a certain score. And when you claim a scientific theory is "tested", what would it take to fail the test? Observation disagreeing with theoretical predictions? But I think we all know by now, scientists don't do that. They'll cling to a cherished theory until something they like better comes along. This may be provocative, but hey... what fun would it be if we all bray in unison. LOL P.S. I hear a lot about evolutionary theory being "tested". Will someone please give me an example of one of these tests? Thanks. Just one.

I'll never be the same