Zosimus

Time index 2:42 "No matter how many data points you add, there will still be an infinite number of possible lines or theories that can be drawn through them."

You are ignoring the problem of unconceived alternatives. Simply because you cannot come up with an infinite number of alternatives does not mean that there are not an infinite number that simply have not been thought up yet.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 I would be delighted to answer your posts, but the moderator police are here keeping us on the topic of underdetermination in science. Feel free to respond to me in private or in another thread. Underdetermination is not one thing. It is many things. For example, let's talk about holistic underdetermination in science. Let us imagine that you and I are doing an experiment to measure the speed of light. We have all of our equipment set up and we successfully measure the speed of light at about 93,000 miles per second — substantially less than the official number. We stare at each other blankly for a moment, and then start checking our equipment. After hours of going over everything, we cannot find anything wrong. We re-run the experiment and come up with the spot on number we expect. What do we conclude? Well, we can conclude: 1) The speed of light was slower at the moment we did the experiment. 2) Even though our equipment seemed to be working fine, it wasn't working fine at the moment of the test. 3) One of us misdid the calculations that led us to the 93,000 miles per second number. Another way of putting this is to say that the data at hand do not give us an indication of what belief we should properly hold. This is holistic underdetermination.

Why don't we start with the point that most published research findings are false. A simple fact check shows that MOSFETs were invented in 1925 whereas our current version of science was invented in 1933. Of course, you might object and say that Bipolar Junction Transistors were invented in 1948 or you might object and say that just because we used a different form of science pre-1933 doesn't mean it wasn't still science. Still, the Antikythera mechanism was produced by the Greeks -- more than a millennium prior to the "Scientific Revolution." Not really. Like others, I walk into a 7-11 and see a bunch of pills all of which purport to alleviate problem X. Rather than trying to figure out which one is best, I simply buy the cheapest. Why is that surprising? Well, if you believe in science, then surely you must believe that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. I haven't been to a doctor in more than two decades. It may surprise you to learn this, but I do as most people do. When I feel hungry, I eat whatever my body wants to eat. Sometimes it wants pizza. Sometimes it wants chocolate. When my body wants liquid, I give it whatever liquid it craves. When my body wants sex, I seek out my wife. Now, I don't claim that any of these things are logically justified. Do you think that a hungry baby thinks, "Well, I have no past experience to rely on, so I am not empirically justified in the belief that mommy's breast milk will sustain me. Perhaps I should engage in a scientific experiment with laboratory rats." Of course not. Don't be silly. I don't use sunscreen. I don't believe in it. All meaningful statements are either true or false. This is called the law of the excluded middle. You must mean centrifugal force. Of course there is centripetal acceleration otherwise the object would not continue to move in a circle. If that's true, why not simply believe that everything is in your head or that everything is as it is because that's what God wants? After all, these theories explain everything. Karl Popper, on the other hand, would claim that a theory that forbids the most is best because it has superior empirical content. Of course I have heard of Occam's razor. I have just never understood while a razor attributed to William of Ockham is not called Ockham's razor. I also point out (as others have) that it is not so simple as to determine which theory is simpler. I don't consider it a science forum. I consider it a philosophy forum that happens to reside on a scientific website. I teach math and critical reasoning to MBA-hopefuls who want to pass the GMAT test. Yes, and I have yet to see how a laser can put a nail into a wall. Well, I guess a laser is useless then. [/sarcasm] I would simply be happier if your average scientific researcher understood basic mathematical concepts. That would be nice.

No, Newton's law of universal gravitation predicts that gravity somehow exerts a force on an object, accelerating it by changing its vector. GR says that no such force exists, rather the object is moving in a straight line through curved multi-dimensional space. Newton's law does not explain why the force is produced. Similarly, GR does not indicate why mass causes space to be curved. I also couldn't help but note that you called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation a theory. This is disconcerting to say the least. One would think that you would know the difference between a law and a theory. Yes, I realize that every time a new scientific fad comes out, you think it's progress. However, you have provided no reason to believe that every change is for the better. Perhaps your theory is that a man, realizing he is on the wrong bus, gets off and gets on another. Therefore, "progress" has been made because the man is no longer on a specific wrong bus. You have not indicated how we could/should know that the new bus is the right one. So your claim is that because the theory has yet to be replaced, it doesn't get replaced? Exactly. Science has zero known true theories. I'm glad we agree. Ahh, but this is exactly the simplistic caricature of science that we are exposed to in this forum. Never are we told, "Experiment X was done, getting a p-value of 0.043 so this seems reasonably promising and we are going to look into it further by first trying to replicate the experiment and then by conducting similar experiments trying to figure out exactly what all of this means." Instead we get cheerleaders. We are told that science is fantastic, but philosophy is nonsense. We are told that science is ever approaching the truth and that we should accept the latest scientific fads without critical thought. We are told that even when science is wrong, it quickly changes and that all change is improvement. We are told that just because science was wrong in the past does not mean that science could be wrong in the future — far from it. Give me a break. I'll pass on the Kool-Aid.

All right, you big baby. I tried to go back to edit the original post to put something like: Underdetermination is a serious and underestimated problem for science in general and scientific realism in particular. Unfortunately, the system won't let me. An assumption is any unstated premise. Since your argument did not contain the sentence "Some technology is based on science" you assumed that it was, but didn't explicitly say so. It's not a non-sequitur but rather an illustration why your argument is ridiculous. It should be obvious from the context that I do not agree that science is a necessary condition for having a computer. I am more inclined to think that I have this computer because of six-sigma quality controls, double-entry bookkeeping, or capital investment. Now, perhaps the computer wouldn't be as advanced as it is now. Maybe my computer would run on vacuum tubes rather than MOSFETs. Who knows? Evidence cannot support anything because of the problem of underdetermination. The evidence that you think supports the theory can, in reality, support an untold number of alternate theories equally well. Clearly, you have misplaced convince in the value of evidence. And I am from a country where people do not stop at stop signs. Similarly, people who are coming to a stop-sign controlled intersection will slow even though they have the right of way. I seriously doubt that you have done any kind of a study to determine that smoke detectors do or do not save lives. You have heard from others that smoke detectors save lives, and you have taken it on faith. I took the time to google the matter and found (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/well/family/a-mothers-voice-is-the-most-effective-smoke-alarm.html ) that smoke detectors only wake children 50 percent of the time and even then they are unlikely to leave their room in a timely fashion, even if they have been trained to do so. Yet, most people still buy smoke detectors because they figure that it's better than nothing. That is game theory at work not induction. Wrong. You carry an umbrella because the cost of carrying an umbrella if it's sunny is small whereas the cost of not carrying an umbrella if it rains is large. You do not stop to calculate the likelihood of rain. You just always carry an umbrella with you for the same reason you always carry a spare tire and a jack in the trunk. Can Newtonian gravity explain the precession of Mercury? No? Then it's wrong. Thanks. I'm glad you caught it. My subtlety is lost on many people here. There was no math. It was an illustration. If you'd like a better illustration, I can easily come up with one. As a child, I was often given the task of completing a series of numbers. For example, we would see: 1, 2, 3... ___ What comes next? Well, the credited response is 4. If you put 10 or 2 you don't get credit. Yet, is it impossible that the next number is 10? Hardly. We could easily be working in base-4 counting. Another possibility is 2 (the largest prime factor of n). The point is that you have been told and trained since a child to believe that the data set indicates one answer. If you refuse to believe this, you are punished. If you believe it, you are rewarded. Yet, simple carrot-and-stick games do not make a false statement true. There are always alternate explanations for any data set. If theory T is correct, we will observe O. We do not observe O. Therefore, theory T is not correct. Modus Tollens. Regardless of whether you agree, there are an infinite number of graphs that could be used to connect the points in a data sequence. If our theory is true, then it will fit the data. Our theory fits the data. Therefore, it must be true. (Affirming the consequent — a formal logical fallacy) In reality, there are a large number of theories (conceived and yet to be conceived) that will explain the data.

Look — the topic is underdetermination in science. You have made one giant post, and you haven't talked about the topic at hand even once. You're going to get the topic off into an area that it's not supposed to be in, and then some self-righteous mod is going to come in and close the thread. Why do you want to screw this up for me? I'm interested in what people have to say. Since you're not interested in philosophy, go somewhere else and let people who are interested in it talk about it. As for why I have a computer and some guy in Venezuela doesn't, I'll tell you why — capitalism. I must admit that I haven't read his book. However, I do know that he wrote the Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on underdetermination. Till we get his book, that will have to do. Fundamentally, this usually boils down to the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. People will say: You don't believe in theory X? Well, what's your theory then? Because if you don't have another theory, then you have to believe in my theory. Well, if history teaches us anything it is this: In 20-30 years some really smart guy is going to come up with a new theory, and 10-20 years after that it will be the latest fad. The only sad thing is that the vocalist critics will probably be dead by then, and we won't get to rub their noses in it. The word "underdetermination" did not occur in your post anywhere. You are off topic.

We certainly realize that you are unable to grasp philosophical arguments and that you think there is nothing to grasp. Except for the opportunity to call everyone who disagrees with you obtuse, I wonder exactly why you frequent the philosophical section of the site. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you leave the philosophical section to those who find philosophy interesting. Perhaps you can find a more interesting place to play. Are there no sandboxes where you live? So your argument is that science has multiple, serious logical fallacies (such as underdetermination) and that makes you proud? All right — here's how these things work: It's common to have an introductory paragraph that sets the stage. For example one might write: "It is commonly believed that...x, y, and z" The second paragraph will start with the word HOWEVER, which is a key word to let you know that what has gone before that (the first paragraph) is nonsense. With this insight in mind, let's go back to the Original Post. It is common to say that theory (insert theory here) has been highly corroborated, is 99.99999% true, etc., etc. HOWEVER, underdetermination makes fools of people who think such a thing. P3: Objection 1 is presented and demolished. P4: Objection 2 revealed. P5: Objection 2 demolished. Was that too subtle for you? This is a pretty common logical fallacy. "Science works because you have a computer." The assumption (never stated much less proved) is that all technology is the result of science. Perhaps I should say, "Thor exists otherwise your computer wouldn't have electricity to work." Or perhaps we should say, "It's ironic that someone is using the fingers that JHWH provided for him to type in this forum in such a way to deny His very existence." Let me see whether get your argument. It appears to be: Since science cannot prove any of its theories true, the certainty of theories must surely increase (or decrease) based on what we learn. There's a problem with that argument. When the conclusion of an argument contains words that are not contained in the premises of the argument, there is a logical gap. Here's a proper argument: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (You see how that works? The words Socrates and mortal are both contained in the premises). Here's an improper argument: John is tall. Therefore, he must be good at basketball. (You see how that works? The word basketball isn't mentioned anywhere in the argument. There's a missing premise). Yes, I certainly concede that there is a tendency towards a subjective confidence in certain ideas. I think we can all see that subjective confidence in the New York stock exchange right now. No one seems to be willing to admit that stock markets can plunge. They are, of course, wrong. Confidence is no proof of rightness. If it were, Jehovah's Witnesses would be the rightest people in the world. Well, if science is right, then we have a feedback loop in our brain that delivers dopamine thus encouraging us to repeat certain apparently successful past experiences. This infallible feedback loop is, of course, the reason people get addicted to gambling and drugs. Do you really do so? For example, if you come to a red light do you think back and reason, "I've never seen a police officer at this intersection, so I can safely run the red light as soon as the traffic thins out?" or do you simply do the safe thing and wait till the light is green? Perhaps you might even engage in other safe activities such as having a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, and fire insurance, even though your house has never caught fire. Perhaps you also take an umbrella with you even though it was sunny yesterday. After all, it might rain. Heck — maybe we should have earthquake drills from time to time. Maybe we should stockpile drinking water, even though the water has been working just fine uninterruptedly for years. After all, there might be some sort of disaster. Or is all of this too radical of an idea for you? If you think so, then you just don't understand the topic at hand. No it's not. If we are certain of something, then any evidence to the contrary must be either false or misleading and should be ignored. Yet, if we ignore any evidence that goes against our belief, we are behaving irrationally. Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

I hate loose cases. I was given to understand that a key portion of discussing here is an open mindedness to both sides of the issue. Perhaps I am not as open minded as I should be. Not all of us can be beecee, you know. But I strive to be open minded. Yes, I can. In fact, I think I have argued that all scientific theories are wrong. Truth is well defined. It exists quite comfortably in logic and mathematics. I don't dispute that science has a problem with finding, defining, and testing for truth. That sounds like a pretty solid criticism of science. It sounds suspiciously like you're agreeing with me.

Your post is amusing. First you dispute the idea that anyone says that theories are true, likely true, or proven. Then you go ahead to claim that theories "grow in certainty over time." Why should I (or anyone for that matter) believe that theories grow in certainty over time? Maybe you didn't understand the topic. Why don't you go back and read about underdetermination again. Perhaps you could even look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Well, that's the point of underdetermination. It is to point out that the theory you claim is 99.99995% certain is really only one of an infinite number of theories.

It's called pessimistic metainduction. Since successful theories in the past have been found to be untrue, we cannot claim with any certainty that current successful theories are true. You are begging the question. The issue at hand is whether successful theories can be said to be true. Simply saying that past theories must have been at least partially true because they were successful to a degree does not fundamentally answer the question. Again, pessimistic induction argues that both theories are likely to be wrong. Simply saying that Newton's theories are successful in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct or even partially correct. I realize that you're unaccustomed to someone presenting a topic in a fair and balanced way that doesn't try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with a preconceived notion. Perhaps you'll get used to it. Perhaps you won't.

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y. Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain. Because of the evidence, the theory has been so repeatedly confirmed that it would be wrong to withhold provisional assent. However, philosophers disagree because of the problem of underdetermination. To understand underdetermination, we can simply look at the following graph: We have three data points, and we are trying to express these data points as a graph. As you can see, a simple straight line adequately expresses the data. Unfortunately, we can also generate other graphs. Two sine-wave-shaped graphs have also been provided, each with a different amplitude. Nor do our choices end there. Even if we just stick to sine waves, we could easily construct an infinite number of graphs to express those data points. Perhaps you think that the problem is too few data points. After all, three points do not a theory make. What if we had 4, or 5, or 29,842? Actually, it would make no difference at all. We could still construct an infinite number of graphs to describe the points in question. Yes, it is true that some theories will have been eliminated as inconsistent with the data points, but new theories can constantly be constructed that will match the data. Since the theory in question is merely one of an infinite number of theories, it would be wrong to consider it correct, proved, or even favored. We should say that the theory is empirically sufficient and leave it at that. Still, not everyone agrees. The most pervasive dismissal of underdetermination is the idea that all these different graphs are not really different theories — they are merely different permutations of the same theory. Yes, we may argue about the details of evolution, one may insist, but evolution itself is firmly established as reality. We can argue over punctuated equilibrium, Darwinism vs epigenetic expression, but at the end of the day, science is united: Evolution is a fact. Kyle Stanford, an expert on underdetermination in science, would bring up the concept of the unconceived alternative. Back in Newton’s day, everyone considered Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation as the best and only explanation simply because quantum gravity and Einstein’s theories had yet to be conceived. Once new explanations were conceived, Newton’s laws had to be consigned to the dustbins of science. This is not because Newton’s laws hadn’t done well for centuries — they had. But an unconceived alternative turned all of science on its head. At the end of the day, a theory is just a theory. A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated. Evolution, quantum mechanics, yes even the laws of thermodynamics will have been eliminated. It is hubris to claim that we know the truth. As Socrates said, we are ahead of the game only if we realize that we truly know nothing. P.S. This topic is about underdetermination in science. Evolution was mentioned merely as an example. I would hate to see this topic devolve into a debate between creationists and Darwinists.

If preaching means trying to convert the other person to your point of view, then we're all doing it.

I was unaware that Europe was the only place in the universe. My apologies. [/sarcasm] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-Europe/ Christians had the most births and deaths of any religious group in recent years, according to our demographic models. Between 2010 and 2015, an estimated 223 million babies were born to Christian mothers and roughly 107 million Christians died – a natural increase of 116 million.... Not all babies will remain in the religion of their mother, of course. In some countries, including the United States, it is fairly common for adults to leave their childhood religion and switch to another faith (or no faith). Globally, however, the effect of religious switching is overshadowed by the impact of differences in fertility and mortality.

Off topic. Even assuming that your figures were true (they aren't) it still would hardly show that religion was dying. The latest information from Pew research shows that religious people are more devout than before. At any rate, even assuming that people were becoming less religious, that would mean nothing about belief or disbelief in God. Irrelevant. Off topic.