Re: For New T.O. Readers - Karl Popper

On Jun 30, 9:41 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mr tiktaalik wrote:
Hi

I know that the "falsifiability" issue as a key argument vs
creationism/ID has been long debated, for the newer readers of Talk
Origins, I think this gives a useful summary of what is or is not "a
theory"

"Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a
prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted
effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions
which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly
every theory - if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky
predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in
question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with
the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.
. . . .
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific
status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or
testability. Where does Inteligent Design creationism fit in to
this?.... Nowhere.

There is something about this that does bother me, as a non-scientist.
Namely, how much of a "consensus" in the scientific community is enough
for non-scientists to go on?

IANAS...
Consensus, as you note, is not a perfect agreement of opinions, but
only a clear majority of opinions on a particular subject.


It has come up more in legitimate scientific disputes, such as whether
dinosaurs really were the ancestor of birds, whether dinosaurs really
were agile and warm-blooded, etc.  And it comes up more recently, with
issues like alleged halocarbon-caused holes in the ozone layer or
alleged human-caused global warming.

There are minority opinions that are perfectly respectable. Some
physicists complain that string theory is not testable, but they
rarely make the accusation that string theorists are quacks. String
theory may yet turn out to *be testable.

The opinion that humans spread throughout the world and then evolved
into the modern form is losing favor in light of data from the last
decade or so, but it is still a respectable model. In time, if the
evidence supporting "out of Africa" continues to accumulate, it would
be ...eccentric to maintain that position.

There is much debate on how much, and thru what mechanisms, humanity
is contributing to Global warming. But the consensus is that it is
happening, and it's largely our fault.

Scientific models and consensus are always contingent. One important
difference between scientists and other folks is that scientists
accept (or are resigned to) a greater degree of uncertainty.


At any given time, there was a "consensus" in that a large majority of
the relevant scientists accepted a particular position.  But there was a
minority of scientists who did not, and argued strenuously for their
position.  These are NOT pseudo-scientists or crackpots; these
dissenters were scientists, and their dissent and debate was scientific.

Nevertheless, what should society do when public policy depends on
scientific advice?  Whether dinosaurs were agile and warm-blooded is
going to affect a lot of Hollywood sci-fi movies; what to do about
global warming or halocarbons has a lot of socio-economic implications;
etc.

When it's important, but we cannot state with a high degree of
confidence what the best course is, then perhaps we should start by
acknowledging that we don't know the answer for sure. Of course,
politicians would never admit that, and the hoi polloi would never
stand for it.


It seems that as long as there isn't 100% agreement from all scientists
about a theory (and how often is there 100.000% agreement), society can
be paralyzed waiting for scientists to "make up their minds already."

Ignorance is less dangerous than "knowing" something that is false.


Alternatively, society can swing wildly from one extreme to another, as
the scientific consensus evolves.  We see that in the case of
nutritional science, where controlled scientific studies on human
lifestyles are frought with uncertainties.  Almost every other month,
there's another breathless news story about "Selenium is good for you!"
  Too much selenium is bad for you!"  "Eat more of this!"  "Eat less of
that!"

This is largely the fault of journalists. Also, any scientists in the
field who can be corrupted will be corrupted by the food lobbies. And
the honest ones will be censured (especially, in the US, by the
current administration).


As a non-scientist, I wish the scientific community would limit its
recommendations to the general public to what they are *absolutely sure
about*.  As long as there is still a debate raging in scientific
circles, can you please leave us alone?  Come back when you have it all
resolved!

By altering my diet last year based on data that has become available
only in the last ten years or so, I've lost 15 pounds of fat and
vastly improved my endurance. <shrug>

I'll keep up with the latest reasonable information and modify as
necessary. Life is uncertain. But yeah, you can go crazy trying to be
too up to date. Unless it's your field of interest...

Can't you just ignore it? Information overload *is a problem.


--
Steven L.
Email:  sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages