Re: Mavic

Andres Muro wrote:

One need not be an adherent of Empiricism to accept that we must
accept empirical evidence whether you have a theory to go with it
or not.

We wouldn't be where we are without the empirical work of the
last few centuries to draw from. Of course we now live in an era
where theory is far more productive than it was even a few years
ago. The point remains, *** happens whether you can explain it
or not.

The power of science lies in its ability to make predictive
models. It predicts the unknown from the known. Those
predictions are then tested by observation & experiment. Every
proposed model must (obviously) agree with all historical
observations, but the real test of a model is its predictive
power.

Science (via the scientific method) employs (necessarily)
empirical methods, hence the term "empirical science" is a
tautology. Data without a model doesn't predict other than by
correlation. "Red skies at night..." isn't a model, so it doesn't
predict other phenomena which may then be experimentally observed.
Adding a simple element of causality: "Red skies at night...
*because*...", predicts other observable consequences. Einstein's
model went beyond the body of historical observations to predict
bending of light by gravitational fields, subsequently observed.

One risk of a purely correlative model (if that's not a
contradiction in terms) is that it accumulates all kinds of
baggage. This is as true in wheel building as anything else.
Eventual success via trial & error necessarily involves a lot of
woe, but also is forced to start from scratch again when things
change substantially. Of course without a causal model (perhaps a
redundant term), you don't even know what is substantial & what
isn't.

One can argue that purely trial & error isn't science at all, even
if it yields knowledge about what works & doesn't. I'd contrast
Edison's "99% perspiration" approach with Einstein's. Edison was
mostly tinkering, not doing science. Personally, I'd go further
and call pure trial & error anti-science.

You are correct, but that doesn't keep me from getting pissed at
people who deny that for which they don't have a theory.
Personally, I have no knowledge or experience with the "red sky at
night..." thing, so let's just say it is so and is repeatedly seen
to be so. The absence of a model doesn't change it. Sure it's
only correlation, build from that.

I've always been more a fan of Tesla than Edison myself, "and a few
percent of thinking the problem through will save a lot of that
perspiration."

The problems are the people who cannot accept that things exist
outside their knowledge. If they don't have an explanation for a
phenomenon they deny it. If we waited for the microbiology and
biochemical knowledge necessary to explain it, the cows would've
starved for lack of silage or died from methanol.

Can you give an example of an observable phenomenon that some people
deny? What I found is the opposite. A small group of people may
observe something or construct something based on the agreed logic
of a group and they construct hypotheses about what they see or
their logic lead to and when others don't share the experience or
logic, they get upset. UFO's and intelligent design come to mind.

That's odd, but you picked two excellent concepts that defy scientific
corroboration, and are therefore in the same boat. All we need to do
is stabilize them.

Jobst Brandt
.

Loading