ydoaPs

Popcorn Sutton has been suspended for 3 days due to persistent thread hijacking.

This pinned topic is not a continuation of a locked thread. It began as a reply to an off-topic part of a thread (and, thus, likely would have been moved into its own thread anyway). Furthermore, as it explicitly says in the OP, it turned into more than that. Now, let's look at why you're wrong.....again. I'm actually not wrong at all. The OP is simply a historical survey of the evolution of thought in Philosophy of Science. Each view is accurately represented, and that includes Popper's despite your misinterpretation of what he said. Your quote: "It is true that I have used the terms 'elimination', and even 'rejection' when discussing 'refutation'. But it is clear from my main discussion that these terms mean, when applied to a scientific theory, THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AS A CONTENDER FOR THE TRUTH--THAT IS, REFUTED, but not necessarily abandoned." (emphasis mine) You're confusing epistemological acceptance with pragmatic acceptance. That's a rookie mistake one can make when they learn about people's position via Wikipedia instead of their actual works. Karl Popper most definitely held that a theory is proven to be wrong and should be rejected wholesale "as a contender for the truth" upon falsification. His view is completely wrong, as shown by the Duhem problem and the more correct version of the Lakatosian Research Programme as put forth by Dorling and Redhead-like I said. I did no such thing. Again, you show a shallow understanding of the issue. It's true that the Bayesian approach includes frequentism within it. However, if you'd have learned about it via the literature rather than via Wikipedia, you'd know that in the philosophy of statistics debate, the frequentists overwhelmingly tend to reject Bayesianism wholesale because they don't think of probability the same way.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts moved to Speculations

I got Demise and Science at the Bar from Laudan's book. Ruse's reply was not included.

I didn't know Ruse had a final rebuttal. I just started with Demise, gave the criteria set forth by Ruse, and then completely destroyed Science at the Bar with a vengeance.

He's had several bad papers. Do you mean "Science at the Bar"? If so, I'm currently (procrastinating instead of) writing a paper about it. I'm writing about the whole episode, actually. Starting with the court case, moving on to Laudan's terrible "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", Ruse's great "Creation Science is not Science", and ending with Laudan's awful reply in "Science at the Bar" with my own thoughts along the way, of course.

This was originally going to be a response to another thread, but it would have taken it sufficiently off topic (and now the thread is closed). As I went on writing, it got really long, so I'm just turning it into a very short introduction of science. Now, Popper was on the right track, but he was off by quite a bit. Popper's naïve falsification is essentially just a modus tollens. T⊃O ~O ∴~T If the theory is true, we have a predicted observation (within a certain amount of uncertainty). When we measure something outside of that range for that predicted observation, we need to throw out the theory wholesale. Think about that. Anytime we have a falsifying observation, per Popper, the whole thing goes out the window. So, let's take the recent measurement of superluminal neutrinos. Do we then throw out all of relativity? But, wait, we're not just testing relativity. No theory is an island-Special Relativity is a deductive consequence of ElectroDynamics (in fact, Einstein's paper was called "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" which is translated as "On the ElectroDynamics of Moving Bodies") and the relativity principle which goes back to Galileo. This is called the Duhem problem (sometimes the Quine-Duhem thesis). Now this makes Popper's wholesale trashing upon falsification an even bigger deal. Do we throw out ALL of the related theories that are tangled up in this experiment? If not, which do we toss and which do we keep? (T1&T2&...&Tn)⊃O ~O ∴~(T1&T2&...&Tn) So, because of this insight, upon falsification, we know they can't all be right, but we don't know which, if any, are right. Here comes Lakatos who made a more sophisticated version of falsificationism in that he tried to get rid of the Duhem problem. It's a fairly ingenious thing to do. He broke up a theory into what he called a "research programme" which consists of the theoretical "hard core" and ancillary assumptions composing what he calls the "protective belt". So, with this framework, if a research programme is falsified, you go from an indefinite number of inconsistent theories to two inconsistent classes. If a programme is falsified, check your protective belt of ancillary assumptions and do the test again. This, it turns out, is what science actually does. Going back to the observation of superluminal neutrinos, that falsifies a huge swath of physics given the Duhem problem. But with Lakatos's research programme formulation, we should check out ancillary assumptions first. After checking all of our ancillary assumptions, we found one that was wrong. We assumed that all of our cables were connected properly. This assumption, however was wrong. It turns out, that the neutrinos weren't superluminal after all! On the face of it (or "prima facie", to use fancy philosophy terms), this is a very elegant solution. There is a problem, though. Lakatos's solution doesn't give us any way to know what goes in the "hard core" and what goes in the "protective belt". It also doesn't tell us why to check the protective belt first. So, after a bit of thinking about it, Lakatos's solution seems a bit ad hoc, and that's generally not a good thing. At this point, a guy named Dorling comes along wielding one of the most powerful tools in existence. With it, he showed that Lakatos was correct and he answered the things Laktos's approach couldn't answer, putting Lakatos's more sophisticated falsificationism on firm epistemological ground. What tool is was it that he used? If you've read many philosophy posts by me, you can probably guess. It's the equation that pretty much rules the world--Bayes's Theorem: [math]P_{f}(h_1)=P_{0}(h_1|e_i)=\frac{P(e_i|h_1){\times}P_{0}(h_1)}{\sum^n_{j=1}{P(e_i|h_j){\times}P(h_j)}}[/math] Where P(h|e) is how likely the hypothesis is given the evidence in question, P(e|hn) is how likely the evidence in question is given the hypothesis in question is true, and P(h) is just how likely the hypothesis is without considering the evidence in question. I actually prefer Howson and Urbach's example of Dorling's approach to the example Dorling used in his own paper. The example they use is that of William Prout (a chemist and medical practitioner from the early nineteenth century). Prout had a hypothesis (which Howson and Urbach label "t")that was almost universally accepted at the time. His hypothesis was that all chemical elements were made of hydrogen and thus they all have atomic weights as integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. At the time, almost all recorded atomic weights were close enough to integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen within the limits of error. Then we measured one that breaks the pattern. We'll call that measurement the evidence, "e". Now, this experiment had a hypothesis entangled with t. That is the accuracy of measurement, purity of samples, etc. Howson and Urbach call that "a". Now e falsifies a&t, so P(a&t|e)=0 and, by a simple corollary, P(e|a&t)=0. The hypotheses t and a are independent, so P(a|t)=P(a), P(~a|t)=P(~a), P(t|a)=t, and P(~t|a)=~t (with similar results from negating the thing upon which the probability is conditional). What we're interested in finding out is which hypothesis (or hypotheses) we should reject. So, what we want to know is Pf(t) and Pf(a|e). From Bayes's Theorem (above): [math]P(t|e)=\frac{P_{0}(t){\times}P(e|t)}{P(e)}[/math] and [math]P(a|e)=\frac{P_{0}(a){\times}P(e|a)}{P(e)}[/math] Since P(e|t)=P(e|t&a)xP(a|t)+P(e|t&~a)xP(~a|t) (by the Total Probability Theorem) and the results mentioned above, P(e|t)=P(e|t&~a)xP(~a), P(e|~t)=P(e|~t&a)xP(a)+P(e|~t&~a)xP(~a) and P(e|a)=P(e|a&~t)xP(~t). At the time, the only real competing theory for Prout's theory was random distribution. From the details of that theory and from the details of the actual measurement of e allows calculation of P(e|~t&a), P(e|~t&~a), and P(e|t&~a): P(e|~t&a)=0.01, P(e|~t&~a)=0.01, and P(e|t&~a)=0.02. The historical values of P(a) and P(t) have been estimated at P(a)=0.6 and P(t)=0.9. This gives: P(e|~t)=(0.01)x(0.6)+(0.01)x(0.4)=0.01 P(e|t)=(0.02)x(0.4)=0.008 P(e|a)=(0.01)x(0.1)=0.001 The Total Probability Theorem tells us that P(e)=P(e|t)xP(t)+P(e|~t)xP(~t). P(e)=(0.008)x(0.9)+(0.01)x(0.1)=0.0082 [math]P(t|e)=\frac{(0.9){\times}P(0.008)}{P(0.0082)}=0.878[/math] which is still pretty darn high (compare to the original value of 0.9) [math]P(a|e)=\frac{(0.6){\times}P(0.001)}{P(0.0082)}=0.073[/math] which is a dramatic decrease from 0.6 (the original value). As we can see, this one piece of evidence that falsifies the conjunction doesn't automatically falsify everything (though it makes them all less likely). So, through Dorling type Bayesian approach, we get a good semi-Lakatosian view of falsification which tells us exactly how each part of the programme being tested is affected via the final probability. This also vindicates Lakatos's distinction between "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes. A progressive research programme is one that is repeatedly confirmed and a degenerative research programme is one that is repeatedly disconfirmed. A progressive research programme can stand up to some data that doesn't quite fit the programme (which is why we didn't throw General Relativity out the window when we found out about the Pioneer Anomaly). And Popper would have absolutely no truck with this as he was very anti-inductive. Confirmation was a dirty word for him. For Popper, if a test didn't falsify your hypothesis, the only value of the experiment was getting rid of other hypotheses from the pool of competing hypotheses. But, as you can see from Bayes's Theorem, even experiments that don't falsify your hypothesis, it can in fact give partial confirmation to your hypothesis by raising the probability of the hypothesis. It's all about what the P(e|h) is. Bayes's Theorem tells us that Carl Sagan's mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a mathematical fact. [math]P_{f}(h_1)=P_{0}(h_1|e_i)=\frac{P(e_i|h_1){\times}P_{0}(h_1)}{P(e)}[/math] P(e) is a function of all competing hypotheses, so it will remain constant in the evaluation here. Now, this makes P(h|e)=kP(e|h)xP(h). So, let's set a threshold for what we can rationally believe (a lower bound for P(h|e)) this will be a constant. We can divide one constant by the other to get another constant. C=P(e|h)xP(h), so it is blindingly clear that the lower is, the higher P(e|h) needs to be to reach the threshold of rational belief. Contrary to Popper, we need both falsification (a version far more sophisticated than his using tools he wouldn't like) and partial confirmation (which he really wouldn't like).

This should be required philosophical reading for crackpots.

We voted for Obama, but we also voted for Mitch Daniels.

Yet somehow, one party lies far more often and severely than the other. And their followers repeat the lies even after being corrected. Any guess which party that would be?

Indeed. It's a strict liability offense. If you have it (even if someone put it on your hard drive without your knowledge or consent), you're guilty.

This is one of those knee-jerk topics, so I'm going to begin with a request and some explicit clarifications. Request: This thread is about this article. Please refrain from commenting unless you've read it and read all of it. I'd like it if a moderator could remove any defense of child molestation (unless, of course, they have overwhelming arguments, in which case a separate thread should be made). Clarifications: I do not now, nor have I ever condoned child abuse be it sexual or otherwise. Hopefully that goes for the rest of the membership. The title of the article is a bit misleading (one of the reasons I didn't include the name in the hypertext). We're discussing modification of the current laws; this may extend to, but does not necessarily extend to, complete legalization. Ok, now to the discussion. If one doesn't know much about the laws, some of the points may seem absurd, so here is a follow-up article by the same author discussing some of the current laws and some examples. The original article's thesis is two-fold; it is arguing that the laws need to be modified within the next 10 years, and it argues that the current laws are counter-productive to prosecuting the molesters. The first part of the article goes into the "why ten years" bit, by talking about a current project underway by Google. This section has received criticism because people think the scenario would never fly in court. The troubling bit is that people are (there's an example in the second article) prosecuted in similar situations now with current technology. If the example is unrealistic, it's not because it wouldn't be prosecuted, but rather because of the timeframe set. Most people agree that the second point of the article is spot on. There's no real reason why a teenager should be treated under the law like a person who has video of a child being raped just because he or she received a text message from his or her girlfriend/boyfriend. Some general criticisms of changing the laws are two claims: 1) Availability of child pornography increases the amount of molestation. 2) For production of child pornography to occur, someone must be harmed. Well, it seems that 1 might not be true, and might actually be opposite. There's a study that suggests that the correlation is the opposite, and there's another study (www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Child_porn_viewers_unlikely_to_abuse.html?cid=996966) which suggests that pedophiles who view child pornography are less likely to molest children than those who do not. As for point 2, under current laws, it is factually false because of point 2 above. Under current laws, teenagers sexting and girls lying about their age on /r/gonewild are exactly the same as media depicting children being raped. So, my opinion in short is: the laws should be modified, but not necessarily scrapped altogether. *edited for formatting*

Whenever you send a message, it gives you a popup confirming that the message was sent. However, the popup looks like an error message (it's got a red circle). Every time I send a PM, I think for half a second that I've broken the site. I'd change that about the new sfn.

Yes.

It's Opening Post or Opening Poster, typically.

The forums are a bit slow. It'd be awfully nice if we had a way to communicate in realtime. Luckily, we have a solution for that problem. It's called IRC (Internet Relay Chat); it's a nerdier version of a chat room. You can access it through our site's java plugin via the Chat tab at the top of the page or this link. The program with which you chat is called a client. If you're familiar with IRC and have a real client (or want to use a different web client such as mibbit), you can manually enter the chat information. The server is blackcobalt.net and the channel (like a 'room') is #sfn. We also have a more relaxed channel that isn't really science related at all and it is #otw on the same server. Neither #sfn nor #otw are for instant homework help. In fact, most of the time the people in the channel are idle (they have their computers on and the client running, but they are either away or not actively using the chat). At the side of the chat window, you will see a list of names. Different clients have different ways of marking the differences in levels of power. However, all of the clients I know of do list them hierarchally with the people with no power on the bottom and the people with all the power on the top. The people on the top are the channel operators and are the equivalent of moderators on the forum, although the operators on the channel are not necessarily moderators in the forum. Below that, we have the people with what is called voice. That just means that they can talk if the channel is set to a moderated mode (which it almost never is). #otw uses another class of operator which is the halfop; they are like the channel operators, but their powers are more limited. IRC has a few features (none of which are to be abused): nickname To change your name on the chat, type '/nick <whatever you want your name to be>' without quotes and replacing <whatever you want your name to be> with whatever you want your name to be. register You can register your nickname for later use. This will also allow you to be placed on lists like the vop list so that whenever you identify (we'll get to that), the server will automatically give you the power associated with that list. To register your nickname, type '/ns register <password> <e-mail address>' without quotes, replacing <password> with your desired password, and <e-mail address> with a valid e-mail address. identify Once you have registered, you can identify yourself (which is basically logging in) and automatically receive any powers you are entitled. To identify yourself, type '/ns identify <password>' without quotes and replacing <password> with your password. action To do an action on chat, type '/me <whatever action you want to do>' without quotes and replacing <whatever action you want to do> with whatever action you want to do. The actions are just a fun little thing that doesn't really do anything but change the way text is formatted. There isn't a list of actions; you can type whatever you want. example: Instead of having <ydoaPs> is rolling on the floor laughing. I could use the action feature to make it render as *ydoaPs is rolling on the floor laughing. Those are most of the features you'll need to use. Have fun and remember nonscience stuff goes in #otw. As fair warning, there is sometimes [acr=Not Safe For Work]NSFW[/acr] material posted in #otw. If you happen to see anything particularly memorable in chat, we have an IRC quote thread.

Ok, now we've replied to a post. Congratulations! That's a good step forward. What do we do now? Well, let's make our own thread topic! Not so fast; let's go up and use the search function to see if our topic has already come up. Now that we've done a search and not found a recent thread just like the one we want to make, we are going to make our first thread! We need to figure out first where to post the thread. By clicking on the logo for the site, you will be taken to the list of forums. Let's look at that list and figure out which forum is most relevant to our topic. Click on that forum link. Now click the "Start New Topic" button. The Etiquette Guidelines have some things to keep in mind. Now that we've made a thread, we wait for replies and then reply to them creating a conversation. Good Job.

Welcome to SFN! In order to help people who are unfamiliar with internet forums, I have put together a small tutorial to expedite the development of the posting abilities of the forum as a whole especially the new members. SFN is a great place to talk about various subjects with an amazing community. We have a forum for just about anything related to science and we even have a forum to talk about non-science related things. Most of the forums are open to all users. However, some forums do have restrictions in order to minimize issues inherent in boards with such forums. Politics, Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion are all restricted to posters with a minimum of 30 posts and a membership time of a month. Now, before you go start posting, I ask that you read our rules that you agreed to follow by signing up for the forum. While the rules are mandatory, we also have a STRONGLY encouraged set of etiquette guidelines. If you have any issues or any questions about any of the rules or guidelines you can always contact a moderator or administrator. Now that you've read the rules and the etiquette guidelines, you've probably already found a thread to which you wish to reply. Don't get ahead of yourself just yet-we have some features to help you be understood by the other posters. The forum uses a system called BBCode which is similar to Hypertext Markup Language (or HTML). It uses what we call "tags" to modify the text of a post. To modify the text, you must have the text you desire to be modified between the "open tag" and the "close tag". The difference between open tags and close tags visually is that the close tags start with a /, like this: [tag]Text inside the tags[/tag]. There are various tags that are used, such as the [/noparse] tags used to make text bolded, the tags which italicize text, the tags which underline text, the [noparse] tags which I used to that you can see the other tags, and the tags which place text in a quote box so that readers can more easily distinguish quotes from the main text of a post: The quote tags are a bit more complicated than most of the other tags in that they have more than one part. renders as: You can see that the second part of the quote tags is what designates which user is being quoted. Notice that you only put the second part of the quote tag in the opening tag -- there's no need to end your quote with [/quote name=billy] when you already opened it with the name. Be sure to put the person's name in quotes. If you use the quote button in the bottom right-hand corner of a post, the name and date are inserted for you. We also have a mulitquote feature. If you click the MultiQuote button on the bottom right-hand corner of several posts and then click the Add Reply button, the forum software will automatically quote those posts for you when you compose your reply. One more useful tag is the link tag. This renders as This. We also have a handy list system: There are two types of lists that the forum uses. We have bulleted lists. point one point two renders as point one point two We also have the numbered list. point one point two renders as point one point two The tags I just went over as well as a few others are made into tools that you can use in both the Fast Reply and the Advanced Reply modes should you not wish to type out the tags manually. If you need to play around with formatting to learn how it works, feel free to post in the Sandbox. We also have math tags to display complex mathematical equations, but there is already a tutorial for that. These tags, while not all exclusive of the post features SFN has, are the most common ones and should help you be better understood. Better understanding means better communication. Have fun. I hope to see you post soon.

I might pick that one up, cap'n. I'm reading "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason" by Schellenburg right now. It's a great read and a very thorough treatment of the problem of Divine Hiddenness.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Good luck with your scienceahol addiction. Welcome to the forums.

Road to Reality by Penrose Physics of Star Trek whose author escapes me at the moment The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins

I'd separate the 'scienceforums.net' from the logo more. And perhaps adjust the size. Also, I'd have the atom thingy be less regular(like the old one was).

Now unobtainium, THAT's the real deal!

What show was it?

I just got Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Ehrman, and I'm going to start reading that today.