Re: Science is a Philosophy

On Apr 7, 7:33 pm, "Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:10 pm, "RAM" <RAMather...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Apr 6, 10:40 pm, "Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 6, 5:36 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 16:02:39 -0700,

Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:04 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:20:00 -0000, b...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article <e1t713t2ff4mrajpm151krb6ajuu92g...@xxxxxxx>,
Joe Cummings <joecummi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 10:05:06 -0700, "Seanpit"
<seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 4, 8:40 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[pitman snipped, apparently can't tell the difference between
there being 'philosophy of X' and 'X is a philosophy' -- Jazz
is a philosophy by his approach.]

I tend to agree with Sean that too often science is taught as
incontrovertible" facts".

My own position is that evolution is a theory, and no good
will come of claiming that it is a "fact." This claim that evolution
is a "fact" implies a mistaken view of science and the scientific
method.

After all, what is science about?

I think you mis-stepped around here.

There are various views. For instance, is it the revealing of
the "truth?" Do we try to penetrate the outer appearances to get to
some deeper "truth?"'

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, same as gravity is. For
the longer and more biologically knowledgeable version, see Larry
Moran's FAQ athttp://www.talkorigins.org/--Evolution, fact and theory.

Science refers both to the facts that we have collected (there used
to be trilobites, now there aren't; there didn't used to be birds, now
there are), the theories to explain them (evolution), and the method(s)
used to construct those explanations.

So, yes, some parts of a science class _should_ be teaching facts.
The earth really is round and it really does rotate. You do no service
to students by refusing to teach them facts. Now, in the higher-flown
courses, and perhaps not so highly flown, go ahead and teach also that
these facts, and any others mentioned in the course, are subject to
revision if we get new information that shows how our current belief
in the roundness of the earth is wrong.

But in teaching elementary, jr. high, and most to all of high school,
possibly everything factual which is taught is extremely unlikely to
be revised. Evolution does happen, this is a fact. There are many
different supporting facts/demonstrations/illustrations of that fact.
Again, you do no service to your students to lie about how confidently
known the science is on a subject.

Having amassed a collection of facts, science then tries to explain
them -- by constructing theories. Ideally the theory (getting now to
method) will explain more than just the collection at hand and we
can then gain confidence in the theory by making those confirming
observations/tests/experiments/.... At minimum, though, there's
a theory to explain that collection. Students should also know
what the theory is, how it's been tested, and about constructing
and modifying theories.

The theory of evolution tries to explain the fact of evolution,
no different in principle than the theory of gravity (theory of
general relativity) trying to explain the fact of gravity. The fact
of evolution came first. Darwin's theory for it came later. The
current theory of evolution, whatever that is exactly, is fairly
recent. But, whatever exactly the current theory is, it isn't
exactly what Darwin wrote almost 150 years ago. The changes, and
the reasons for change, are things to be taught.

[trim]

It is questionable whether we assume the existence of
"universal laws." In fact, a large part of scientific activity is
devoted to testing whether laws are universal or not.

It strikes me as a rather small part. Most of science is
fairly localized problem solving -- what is the radiative
transfer through terrestrial clouds, what chemistry might
occur in interstellar gas clouds, which gene (if any) controls
reaction X in the cell, ...

Can you remember the astronauts who tested Galileo's
experiment with the stone and the feather?

Not especially, but I remember doing it myself -- evacuated
tube with a stone and feather inside.

I think this is so important that I'll open a new thread on
it.

I'll call it "Are theories facts?"

Ready in a day or so

Why?

Wiki says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in
contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation
of facts. Some scholars in the philosophy of science question whether
scientific facts are truly objective or are always "theory-laden" to
some degree."

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific%20fact
"scientific fact (an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly
and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final))"

I've argued this before. I showed Harshman a reference to a court
testimony signed by 50 or so nobel prize winning scientists that
theories are not facts. The fact that an element of evolutionists
insist on calling ToE a fact appears to me to be an expression of
faith and purpose in the face of proper scientific terms. Some call it
"witnessing".

I realize you're too stupid to miss the finer things in the comment,
but no one says the "theory" of evolution is a fact. They say that
evolution is the fact, and the theory attempts to explain it. But
since you're only goal is to be an utter fucking prick of immeasurable
and never-ending hostility, you don't care about little things like that.

Actually, Larry Moran's FAQ documents more than one person that says
that theory is fact. Common Ancestry is a hypothesis, and is regarded
as fact. Scientific theories attempt to explain facts, which are
observations and data.
The problem arises when, *within* a theory, certain inferences or
hypotheses are are introduced and *assumed* to be facts, the theory
ceases to be exclusively an explanation of mechanism, but also
statements of "facts" that are not observations.
If you look at Larry's FAQ you will see the word evolution being used
for more than "change in allele frequencies in a population over
time", which is the observable fact of evolution.

He quotes Futuyma:
"In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of
evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the
earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system,
evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the
evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and
unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think
of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply
has not been an issue for a century."

It shouldn't be too tough even for you to see that "evolution" here
means "decent with modification from common ancestors", or the
hypothesis of Common Ancestry. "Evolution began as a hypothesis". The
claim here is that a hypothesis can and has "achieved facthood". So
there you have it. A theory is claimed to be a fact.

The problem here is that theory - which can never be "proven" or
"verified", but only disproven, and remains an *explanation* of
*facts*, is regarded as fact. Explanations can never be facts.
Observations, not theories, are what science refers to as facts. It's
as simple as that. Futuyma and Moran belong to the group of
evolutionists who attempt to expand the definition of "scientific
fact" from observation to "scientific theory" whose evidence in it's
favor" becomes "so strong" that "no knowledgeable and unbiased person"
could deny it's "reality". Got to love those "buzz" words. Toward the
end of Larry's FAQ he even invokes "probability" of theory becoming or
being "fact". That's a real hoot. I bet you swallow it all lock stock
and barrel, AC.

The problem of understanding the "fact"/"theory" relationship requires
a better understanding of science than you seem capable of. You
constantly think you have some intrinsic and unique insight that other
scientists haven't thought about and that therefore they are ignorant,
contradictory or biased about what science is doing or doing wrong.

What you wrote above is an example of such an approach. You write "The
problem here is that theory - which can never be "proven" or
"verified", but only disproven, and remains an *explanation* of
*facts*, is regarded as fact." One problem is that you use
incorrectly language that scientist employ with a very high degree of
regularity (i.e. normatively) to mean something specific and you use
it generically. Theories can be "verified" but never "proven" and yes
they also can be "disproven." Research strategy and logic requires
such an approach. A second related problem is you don't understand
and have never understood that science treats everything as
problematic, from methods to theory to facts. Again research strategy
and scientific logic requires such an approach. Thus scientist know
that facts ...

Troll.

No. That's your gig.

(Snip of you and me being an idiot noted.)

What I wrote about science is well understood by the research
scientifist.

And it is clear that you have not and will not try to understand
science.

You know that you can only be a successful posier on TO.

Your transparency and ignorance of science is obvious to those who
understand science.

RAM


.