From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 13:48:45 MST
[Blunderov] Without in anyway wishing to introduce yet another red-herring,
I have to say- But surely he contradicts his own self here? He makes a
pretty emphatic implied statement that truth cannot be attained and yet he
holds this statement to be true. Haven't we seen this before?
[Hermit] Yes, and it too reeks of the stables - as, I think, do all
"parables" and "morality tales". Mermaid appears to me to be to wrapped up
in the defense of Indian culture right now to be able to see it.
<Hermit reorders>
[Blunderov] The scientific system of thought cannot prove itself to be true.
It would of neccessity be self referencing.You have to subscribe.
[Hermit] /me agrees and disagrees. The scientific method cannot prove
anything true. However, it can be used to test any scientific thing -
including its own methodology despite the fact that this is
self-referential, and by finding the flaws, hidden assumptions or errors in
that methodology can be used to bootstrap itself. In fact, this has occured
repeatedly over the last 150 years (somewhere in the archives... and while
the method can probably still be improved, I have a feeling that any further
improvements will be incremental, rather than vast leaps (of course, as soon
as an emminent person makes an assertion like that, they will probably be
proved wrong, but that would be progress too, and I really wouldn't
mind).<grin>
[Blunderov] The main point being: Every religion has to, in the final
analysis, hold an item of faith. Even the viriians. The viriians hold (I
think) the item of faith that the scientific method of thought is the best
way forward for humanity.
[Hermit] Having made a very necessary point about the scientific method, I
can observe that while the Church of Virus does aver that the "scientific
method of thought is the best way forward for humanity" this is not held as
an article of faith, but a working hypothesis reached through the scientific
method itself, and thus subject to the scientific method's error correction
process.
[Blunderov] Or does Blunderov speak heresy here?
[Hermit] Just a little off the tracks...
Regards
Hermit
====
Two extracts which may help:
["(logic-proof and creative-conjecture) and more was RE: virus: sophomoric
atheism (logic-proof and creative-conjecture)", Hermit, Thu 1999-10-28
06:13]
The Story of the Scientific Method
Aristotle began it all (as he did so many things). Francis Bacon came next.
Bacon, however, offered only four steps based on Aristotle's works, for
scientific investigation: observe, measure, explain, and verify. It was Rene
Descartes who brought it close to a form we would recognize. In 1619, this
23-year-old soldier-philosopher-mathematician published his thoughts which
crystallized the modern scientific method. In 1619, Rene Descartes set down
four rules for applying his method for finding truth:
1. Never accept anything for true which I do not clearly know to be such.
2. Divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as
possible.
3. Begin with the simplest and easiest and then work step by step to the
more complex.
4. Make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I might be
assured that nothing is omitted.
In the 19th century, the method evolved into six steps, and it was only in
the 20th century and Popper that it split into those we recognize today.
(1) Pose a question about nature [Some would say, not necessarily as the
result of an observation].
(2) Collect the pertinent, observable evidence.
(3) Formulate an explanatory hypothesis, defining relevant assumptions.
(4) Deduce its implications.
(5) Test all of the implications experimentally.
(6) Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis based upon the experimental
results.
(7) Define its range of applicability.
(8) Peer review
(9) Publish (including methodology, data and analysis)
(10 )Evaluation and peers continue to test, extend and challenge the
hypothesis
The complete process may take a few days or many lifetimes. The acceptance
of the hypothesis by the scientific community requires that the experimental
results and their interpretation be verified by independent researchers.
Perhaps we are not finished with this development either.
===
["RE: virus: Rose's Evolution/Creation Essay", Hermit, Fri 2000-03-24 05:41]
...
[Miss Rose 1] Belief is the essence of science. A scientist must either do
*every* experiment to prove to himself the validity of what has already been
"proven", or not re-invent the wheel, and accept (believe) what others have
found. The problem here is obvious: the amount of time required to
continually reprove everything is huge, and the possiblity of an experiement
being wrong and not done often enough to defeat a given myth is dangerous.
We know that Sir Isaac Newton fudged at least 1 experiement...
[Hermit 2] Yes, he was a Theist... so we kind of expect it <grin>. He also
came to be regarded as an infallible "guru" (before the word became popular)
in his own time - and pompous, overbearing and dogmatic with all. A bit like
the view you have of me no doubt. But then, I am neither a "guru", nor
dogmatic, so there is hope yet. But seriously you misunderstand - again -
still - as usual.
[Hermit 2] All religions encourage, and indeed rely upon, belief in one form
or another. Belief is the integration or acceptance of things into the
holders' thought processes, without sufficient evidence. Science on the
other hand does not require belief. It involves strenuously resisting the
temptation to believe and ask, what are the facts - and when sufficient
evidence has been gathered on a subject, to temporarily accept and use those
facts (irrespective of whether they are convenient or inconvenient), unless
and until contradictory evidence arises. This way, we can use the facts we
elicit (irrespective of their actual truth value) to build a systematic view
of the world. We don't accept anything as "absolutely proven", and do accept
that one piece of strong contradictory evidence (self-contradictory or
externally contradictory) is sufficient to relegate our "fact" to the rather
large pile of previously disproved facts. This is the path to progress. Note
that in
the absence of evidence, we can theorize - and have fun doing so, but it has
no validity and cannot be used as the foundation for anything - or that
thing will have no validity either.
[Hermit 2] To quote from a private communication with Joe Dees, he put it
rather neatly as "Three measures of validity, and therefore of sufficiency,
are internal consistency (no reductio ad absurdums within the contention),
external coherency (there is no logical conflict with contiguous truths) and
faithful referential correspondence (the proposition seamlessly represents
an observable state/process of affairs). There three are practically never
found in isolation; when one applies, all three do."
[Hermit 2] Please observe the word "sufficient." It acknowledges that we
live in an analog continuum, where there are no absolutes other than the
tests for consistency enumerated above. Absolutes belong in the realm of
theory and rest upon axioms that define the behavior of a system. In the
real world, we can use our common sense to overcome this difficulty by
expressing statements in the form of truth propositions that have a
continuous (or fuzzy) range from "absolutely false" through an "undefined or
indeterminate state" to "absolutely true." We can then use a formal or
informal logic to measure things by examining their truth-values to assign
validity to them.
[Hermit 2] Your assertion that scientists simply "believe" other scientists
is the kind of statement, which simply demonstrates the insufficiency of
your education - and as it has been repeatedly explained to you, with
sources that you can evaluate for yourself, I can only accept that you are
unwilling or unable to follow a natural progression. All science is subject
to refutation. I will cite but a few examples that have had a central place
in the science of the day which have subsequently been scrapped: homuculus,
tidal blood flow, the earth centric universe, phlogiston, aether, the canals
of Mars, conventional electric current, need I continue?
[Hermit 2] I don't need to perform an experiment myself in order to use
something based on the results of that experiment, not because I believe,
but because I have sufficient evidence that the results are correct enough
for me to rely upon them having been extensively tested by others. When I
discover an anomaly (the "that's funny" which precedes almost all
discoveries) I can - if I need to - go back and validate the experiments for
myself. Even if I am more likely to be wrong than the thing I am testing if
I am challenging “accepted” science. And that my dear Miss
Vegetable-Reproductive-Part is the primary difference between science and
belief. I have no limits to what I may question and scrap at need.
[Hermit 2] Again, Joe Dees elegantly summarized this formally as "The
presence of evidence for a contention necessarily relegates adherence to
that contention to the realm of empirical, and therefore probable - rather
than absolute - knowledge; it is only in the absence of evidence that
adherence to a contention can be considered to be belief or faith in it.
Subjective transcendent conceptions of ultimacy are believed in, not known,
as in fact are any ultimate conceptions, be they transcendent or immanent,
since Popperian Falsifiability precludes the admittance of any absolute
universal positive empirical truth-claim, and transcendent conceptions are
by definition neither testable themselves nor derivable from other testable
propositions."
[Hermit 2] The point is that your ongoing shrieks of "But scientists believe
too" is more a statement about your inability to use language correctly,
draw a conclusion, follow an argument or use reason effectively, than
anything that somebody with an iota of sense or education would consider.
The fact that any discussion with you consists largely of having to explain
the fundamentals of logic and language use, against your wails of "does too"
would not be a problem, except that the next time you write, your
reiteration of points hashed out in detail and at length, and not responded
to by you simply proves that the point of it eluded you completely. Nobody
but a fool would ignore this evidence of your unwillingness or inability to
learn or grow. Which I guess makes me a larger fool than most.
...
[Hermit 2] Miss Rose, I freely acknowledge that all of my theories may be
wrong, and attempt to prove them wrong all the time. It is the very
mechanism of scientific progress. As you have been told this umpteen times,
and your statements show that either you are (impolitely) not listening or
(rudely) insinuating that I am a liar, I see no reason whatsoever to be
polite to you, or credit your sniveling dribble as being worthy of serious
consideration. I certainly doubt that anyone as cretinous as you appear to
be could prove anything - never mind that one of my theories is wrong. Hah!
I have a challenge for you. I have a theory that you are a fool, who being
unable to think or present an argument is not worth wasting my time on. Go
ahead and prove me wrong.
[Hermit 2] If you imagine that you anger me, then you really have no idea of
how silly you appear. I am amused, annoyed, bored, and as I mentioned above,
occasionally irritated by you. But not yet angered. Take that as a challenge
too if you like, although not meant as one. <grin> Consider my sarcasm as a
goad in an attempt to get you to start thinking. Being human you possibly
have the latent ability, although the evidence to date indicates that it may
be so atrophied that you will never learn to use it.
[Miss Rose 1] I appreciate your opinions, and yet you can never put them in
a socially acceptable format. why is that?
[Hermit 2] My command of English is adequate to communicate the messages
that I wish to, in a manner appropriate to the recipient. Consider that I
sneer at you to indicate what a truly degraded person I consider you to be -
and ask yourself how I formed this opinion. As I have never met you, it must
have been something you said, "Hmmm?" The remedy lies entirely in your
hands.
[Miss Rose 1] Are you so awful a person that you cannot speak politely to a
oerson seeking knowledge?
[Hermit 2] Oh you do so misunderstand me. I am always completely polite -
and respectful - to seekers of knowledge. Does this say something more about
my opinion of you, based on the evidence of your words to date? While you
may truly "believe" that you seek knowledge, it is, like all belief,
completely unsupported by evidence and indeed, in this instance as in so
many others, flies in the face of the evidence. Not being a believer - I
require evidence for your assertion. It is up to you to provide it.
[Miss Rose 1] Maybe I'm a product of my upbringing, but ...
[Hermit 2] Very likely. It is a part of our human condition. Of course, it
provides a thinking man (or woman) an opportunity to exceed his (or her)
parents.
...
[Miss Rose 1] but don't hold me responsible to believe something just
because everything you see suggests that everyone should believe it. That's
just unreasonable.
[Hermit 2] A point. Made too many times already. I *d*o*n*'*t* *w*a*n*t*
*y*o*u* *t*o* *b*e*l*i*e*v*e* *a*n*y*t*h*i*n*g*! I want you to think for
yourself. I could care less if you decide the exact opposite of what I do on
every possible subject. As long as you can justify why you hold the opinions
you do. As long as you learn to defend them. If you ever stop regurgitating
other peoples' invalid theories and present your own (no matter how invalid
I deem them to be), you will discover that you receive a great deal more
respect from me. Until then, tough shit. Yes, I hld you responsible for
everything you choose to do and say. You don’t like this? You had better
learn to grin and bear it. 'Cos you haven't really been roasted yet.
[Hermit 1] The Scientific Method and Darwinian Evolution:
...
[Miss Rose 1] sure thing. You have to believe so many things. You have to
"believe your eyes" at every step along the way. Might that blind spot be a
problem, after all?
[Hermit 2] This claim of yours is simply the result of using sloppy language
without careful consideration. You have to accept the evidence of your
senses. You should doubt that evidence - i.e. be aware of illusions,
delusions, fraud and plain old wishful thinking, but the evidence is
irrefutable. Simply because it is shared. Which validates that there is
something there. If you refute it, you are really claiming to be unable to
communicate as you have no "shared experience" or "shared worldview" to
communicate about. Having overcome that obstacle - not difficult was it? -
you will assign a truth value to the evidence evinced by your eyes, balanced
by that of your other senses, your experience, your understanding of natural
processes, your reason and the opinions of others, and decide to accept or
reject that evidence. But you have to be able to provide a reason for
accepting or rejecting the evidence. A whim is just plain not good enough.
[Miss Rose 1] Now, the rest of it depends largely on your position.
(5) testing... if I test something and give you the results, you must
beleive that I did not change the data (thus, relying on my honesty and the
belief that my own misconceptions and biases would not get in the way.).
[Hermit 2] If you think this is how the scientific method works, no wonder
you are having difficulties. Haven't you learned anything in school?
Descartes said "First I must determine whether what I believe to be true is
true" - and this is the method of science. This is not blind acceptance -
belief - at all. Note steps 8, 9 and 10. Let me expand on them.
[Hermit 2] (8) Peer review: Your results should be looked at by people who
understand the field, who will make sure that your logic is not flawed and
that your methodology is sound. This avoids unnecessary embarrassment. Like
claiming that "ocean salinity" somehow forms "a clock".
[Hermit 2] (9) Publish including methodology, data and analysis: This means
that if your results are fudged, the fudging will be noted. Your methodology
and analysis can be reviewed by others for potential sources of error and to
ensure that your results mean what you claim for them. Your experiments will
be repeated, and within the defined limits of error should yield the same
results. If they don't, you will have some (a lot, ask Stan Pons and Martin
Fleishmann) explaining to do...
[Hermit 2] (10) Evaluation and peers continue to test, extend and challenge
the hypothesis: This process will continue until (and sometimes even after)
your hypothesis is overturned. A cynical bunch we scientists. And this is
good. Or the first hypothesis to be forwarded would be accepted and we would
never progress beyond there. And PI would still be 3, the Earth the flat
center of the Universe, Venus a god, Men made of clay, etc.
[Hermit 2] No place for belief here. And scientists who lie get caught out.
And in being caught out lose all credibility, no matter how great they are
otherwise (Newton excepted perhaps - but in science, we pay homage to his
results - not to the man).
[Miss Rose 1] From there, you may agree/disagree with my conclusions.
[Hermit 2] Of course. But if I do, and wish others to notice my opinion, I
have to provide reasons, and evidence, and publish. And expect others to
agree/disagree with me in turn. Or it isn't science. It's opinion. And
opinion is not really terribly valuable...
...
[Miss Rose 1] Religion is the opiate of the masses. Get used to it. <snip>
[Hermit 2] Yep. And you can usually determine those who are stoned on it by
their inability to follow a rational argument. Now do we know anyone like
that? <grin>
[Miss Rose 1] That doesn't mean that every evolutionist is smarter than
everyone else.
[Hermit 2] True. The measure is not the position a person holds, but how
they reached that position, and whether they can defend it.
[Miss Rose 1] If that were so, my next jump would be to say that those who
swear less often are more cultured than everyone else, and we all know
you've got more culture than I do. :)
[Hermit 2] Scratches his nuts and wonders what swearing has to do with
culture? At least you didn't spell it with a "k" <grin>
[Miss Rose 1] All my best, sir... and to anyone with the gumption to read
this far.
[Hermit 2] Nice tone. Nice approach. Nice conclusion. Your social skills
apparently exceed your rational skills by a wide margin, although I suspect
that you are too prone to leaping to conclusions about the motivations of
others. Now, please surprise me by proving the hypothesis about you above
incorrect and actually visiting the two sites mentioned above and attempting
to comment on them intelligently.
Hermit <who will reserve his regards for when you prove me wrong about you>
[Hermit] And in case you wondered, the young person I was arguing with here
did eventually earn my respect - in a big way - and is I think still on the
list, but under a different name.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT