Re: Probability arguments in real science


Bobby Bryant wrote:

In article <1180403164.893904.314070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Bobby Bryant wrote:

Does anyone know of any examples of probability arguments that are
broadly accepted as existence proofs among real[*] scientists?

[*] I use "real" to filter out cranks, con artists, and propagandists.

Well, you fooled the class, from replies so far.

Well, you kind of expect Tony to miss the point. (Whether deliberately
or otherwise.)


Science doesn't have /any/ proofs.

Having said that, generally science deals with entities whose
existence seems to be more than merely probable. Entities that can be
observed without much doubt that they are real.

On the fringes of what can be known, I nominate:

- Quantum theory, inasmuch as if a model of a paeticular quantum
experiment leads to a prediction that a given observation is likely,
then it will be taken that actually doing the experiment many times
will reproduce the predicted "probable" outcome.

- Particle physics, where the actual existence of one or another
theoretically possible particle is currently not determined. In
particle accelerators, millions of experiments are done, recorded, and
analysed, all automatically (at first). Probability and the like come
into it as... what is the probability of seeing this experimental
result if theoretical particle P exists, and what is the probability
of the result if P does not exist? In other words, what does the
evidence tell us about the existence of P?

- Individual hard-to-see astronomical objects. These include black
holes and extra-solar planets.

But scientists should, and do, treat probabilstic interpretations of
evidence with scepticism, and while the interpretation of evidence may
be statistical, it is properly to be done to a very hgh confidence
level.

Yeah, I'm looking for things like the existence proofs for an
Intelligent Designer, like Dembski and Gonzalez offer. I'm tempted to
say that real scientists don't do that kind of thing, but I thought I
should check up on the facts.

So ideally no one would have replied? :-)

I think real scientists often do things that scientists shouldn't do,
and unintentionally arm "creationists" to criticise science. Piltdown
Man and so on.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Probability arguments in real science
    ... broadly accepted as existence proofs among realscientists? ... existence seems to be more than merely probable. ... what is the probability of seeing this experimental ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Probability arguments in real science
    ... generally science deals with entities whose ... existence seems to be more than merely probable. ... Particle physics, where the actual existence of one or another ... what is the probability of seeing this experimental ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Probability arguments in real science
    ... broadly accepted as existence proofs among realscientists? ... existence seems to be more than merely probable. ... Particle physics, where the actual existence of one or another ... what is the probability of seeing this experimental ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins makes painfully clear what creationists have said for
    ... Saying that one is and one isn't requires a monumental amount of hubris. ... And this is essentially what Dawkins is saying in Chapter 2, "The God ... "An even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty ... Yet you don't know what hte probability is for any case, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: path-dependence: a philosophical issue concerning time
    ... existence of the past is not necessary but can be used in an objective ... Is all existence contingent on observation? ... philosophers have held, but not scientists in general, and the history ... The stability of the essent can be explained like this: ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading