Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 13, 7:04 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

It is just after a certain point of testing, the odds of random chance
truly being responsible are considered so remote as to be
statistically insignificant.

But what if it *is* just "luck"?
How can one falsify "luck"?

The hypothesis of luck or random chance cannot be absolutely falsified
- but it can be falsified to a statistical degree of "significance".
That is how scientists are able to reject the null hypothesis of luck
or a chance event being responsible for a particular phenomenon even
though this rejection cannot be achieved to absolute certainty.

This is where p-values and the like come
into play when evaluating the null vs. the alternate hypothesis.

p-values are a measure of the statistical support for a particular
hypothesis of distribution. They are not a measure of "luck".

P- and p-rep values, and the like, most certainly are a measure of how
likely the "luck" or "random" hypothesis is as an explanation for a
given phenomenon.

This
is why the hypothesis of deliberate design for the same person winning
the California Lottery 5 times in a row would be a valid scientific
hypothesis - even though it may not be absolutely falsifiable.

So how do you falsify "luck"?

To a statistical degree of significance - that's how. The null
hypothesis cannot be completely falsified. It can only be falsified
to a less-than-perfect degree of confidence.

< snip >

If predictions could be made with
absolute perfection, science wouldn't be needed. Yet, Richard's
argument suggests that because random causes cannot be ruled out in to
an absolute degree, that no hypothesis of non-random origin can be
scientific - because a random origin could always be the true
answer.

Actually, I've never made that argument.

That is not the same as saying that an "hypothesis of random chance"
can be falsified.

One can apply statistical tools to a dataset of numbers and determine
the likelihood of an event occurring,

One can test hypotheses of distribution of data against the dataset,
and determine how well the data fit to the hypothetical model.

What one cannot do is test the assertion that an event happened by
"random chance".

One can show where it falls within the statistical range of
probabilities, but all that can do is to tell us the probability that
the event occurred, which is something completely different.

To test the "hypothesis" of "random chance" you need to think of a
potential *falsifier* of "random chance", not of the statistical
probability of an event occurring.

There is no absolute falsifier of random chance. Ruling out
randomness completely cannot be done. Random chance could always have
been responsible for a given data set or phenomenon in question. That
possibility cannot be completely eliminated. But, this does not mean
that the hypothesis of random chance cannot be tested in a scientific
manner. That is in fact what the concept of the null vs. the
alternate hypothesis is all about. Testing the null hypothesis is the
testing of the hypothesis of random chance. Rejecting the null
hypothesis is a rejection of the proposal that random chance was in
fact responsible for the phenomenon in question.

Richard extends this same thinking to hypotheses concerning
deliberate vs. non-deliberate production or manufacture. He argues:

"What observation or measurement could show that the object could not
have been made by an unknown "non-deliberate" process?"

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9e9c3118c46a9ac?hl=e...

He suggests here that because an unknown non-deliberate cause or
origin for a given phenomenon cannot be ruled out to any absolute
degree that a hypothesis suggesting this possibility to be so remote
as to be insignificant is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet,
this conclusion forms the basis of several sciences, to include
anthropology, forensic science, and SETI.

It quite specifically does *not* include SETI, Sean!

If it includes anthropology and forensic science, which it does, it
most certainly includes SETI as well.

Scientists have to have at
least some idea as to the potential and limits of what non-deliberate
natural processes are likely able to achieve before they can be
clearly distinguished this potentiality from certain activities of
intelligent and deliberately acting agents as they produce true
"artifacts". I mean really, if natural non-deliberate processes are
likely able to produce the same or a similar phenomenon as what could
have been produced by deliberate intelligent action, how can one tell
artifact from non-artifact? I suggest that it can be done by knowing,
to at least some useful if not perfect degree, the limitations of one
potentiality vs. the other that one can reasonably predict a non-
random vs. a random origin for a given phenomenon with better than
even odds of being right.

Blah, blah, blah, Sean.

You are right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

Not everyone else. But you certainly are one of those that do indeed
seem to be more than a bit confused on this particular issue.

It's about time you presented this paradigm-breaking scientific
insight to the waiting world.

What someone with confidence in their convictions would do at this
stage is to write it all up in the form of a paper to be submitted for
publication in an academic journal. After all, it's clear that after
five years of posting you're not going to persuade anyone here that
you're right, so why not present you "theory" to those who you think
capable of understanding it.

Non-argument noted.

The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects.

It's a bloody good clue though, and better than guesswork.
Science isn't about absolutes, Sean.

That's my whole point. Science isn't about absolutes. So, when you
suggest the need for absolutes before a hypothesis of non-deliberate
origin can be adequately rejected, you remove the basis of your own
recognition of tools and tool marks as being most likely artifactual
or "manufactured" in nature. You simply cannot make this assumption
until you have at least some idea as to what you think the likely
limits of non-deliberate natural process are when it comes to making
similar markings or to what you call "tool marks". Real tool marks
cannot be recognized as real tool marks used with deliberate intent
until one has at least some idea that no known natural process even
comes close. One then induces from the known to make assumptions or
predictions about that which is not known - to include as yet unknown
non-deliberate forces of nature.

That's the way science works. It is an induction process based on the
little that is known to make predictions about the nature of the
unknown.

Again,
one is left with having to hypothesize concerning the limits of the
ability of something that can never be known to an absolute degree.
But, that's the nature of science. It isn't about perfection.

It is about evidence though, and the interpretation of that evidence.

That's right. It is about having limited data or evidence and
extrapolating from this limited amount of information to that which is
yet unknown. That is what science does. It isn't about perfection,
either in demonstration or in falsification. It is about degrees of
certainty and predictive power - both in demonstration and
falsification. As with demonstration, falsification often can only be
achieved to a useful *degree* of "significance".

It's not about making sweeping assertions about the results of
statistical tests which are pragmatically impossible to carry out and
then lying that you have carried out such tests, Sean.

You just don't have a conscious understanding that you do in fact do
scientific tests all the time - even if you don't actually write down
all the numbers and observations for your tests. That is why you know
that highly intricate geometric crop circles and highly symmetrical
polished granite cubes, and the like, are clearly artifacts - - even
if you found them on an alien planet. You've already done very real
scientific investigation with these materials to a sufficient degree
that you know, even if subconsciously, that non-deliberate natural
processes don't come remotely close to producing this degree of
symmetry with these particular materials.

Now run away from the challenge of putting your convictions on the
line by writing them up formally as an academic paper.

These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... though this rejection cannot be achieved to absolute certainty. ... There is no absolute falsifier of random chance. ... either in demonstration or in falsification. ... That's a statistical test. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Here is why evolution-defending scientists BLOW SO HARD:
    ... falsification mechanism. ... evolution in general and large-scale patterns of evolution in ... that's the way science works. ... Only world class scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New University Class on ID/Evolution Debate
    ... evolutionary theory is not science but has the facade of science. ... In 1934 Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ... of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsification lies at the ... Popper *did* once say that the ToE is not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New University Class on ID/Evolution Debate
    ... evolutionary theory is not science but has the facade of science. ... In 1934 Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ... of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsification lies at the ... Popper *did* once say that the ToE is not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Here is why evolution-defending scientists BLOW SO HARD:
    ... falsification mechanism. ... evolution in general and large-scale patterns of evolution in ... the scientists working in the field can tell you, ... that's the way science works. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading