Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[Polymath257]

Let's probe that more deeply. Why did you read math books? What made you think that you were capable of learning math? What made you think that math was important?

I was interested and attempted to do it. When I found out I could, I continued. I don't know whether math is important in any grand scheme. It simply tickled my fancy. I didn't know ahead of time that I could learn it. I attempted to and found that I could. From positions of ignorance, testing different alternatives is a good strategy.

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, your question is completely off topic. I asked you to justify Bayesian epistemology and since you couldn't you started asking me about how to logically determine what there is in our house that can be eaten to assuage hunger?

Second, the problem is one that is handled by elementary decision theory. Depending on your exact goals, you will choose one of the min-max scenarios available to you. It is fundamentally no different from choosing whether to have a smoke detector in your house or whether to buy fire insurance.

But how do you know any of the resources available will meet those goals?

Finally, as you know, most people simply react to food emotionally. People eat what they want to eat even though what they eat is often unhealthy. What does that ultimately prove except that people are irrational?

So there is no rational way to know that eating certain things will help assuage hunger?

 

[Zosimus]

Actually, he did. He said that masses produce a gravitational force on other masses given by F=GMm/r^2. He directly attributed gravity to the amount of mass and the distance between.

What you seem to miss is that this is a statement of identity. You determine something mass by weighing it. By weighing it you are measuring the gravitational force exerted on the object. Then you come back around to it by saying that the gravitational force exerted on the object is caused by the gravitational force exerted on the object?

Furthermore, Newton's 'law' of gravity is completely useless without a corresponding 'law' of motion (F=ma). It is only together that the two allow the prediction of orbits, etc.

Irrelevant.

In *exactly* the same way, Einstein proposed that planets follow geodesics in spacetime. Together with the field equation, this allows for precise predictions of things like orbits. He actually never has to mention the term 'gravity' to explain these.

In modern parlance *both* systems were *theories* of gravity. They are both mathematical formulations proposed to describe how things work in the real world. In practice, one (Einstein's) is much more accurate than the other (Newton's). In that sense, Newton's 'law' of gravity has been falsified. It is incorrect *in detail*. In particular, the classical experiments for general relativity are inconsistent with a Newtonian formalism.

Nonetheless, Newton's ideas are still used because they are *useful* for the levels of accuracy required for most people.

I don't get your point. Other than trying to cover up your gaffe of calling Newton's Law of Gravity a theory, where are you going with this?

 

[Zosimus]

Scientists are always very careful of such things, not only false positives but also false negatives.
1) Thus scientists retested the data of CMB polarization that appeared to confirm inflation (very big deal) and found it was due to dust. (False positive for a theory corrected).
2) Scientists accepted, after careful scrutiny the data that the expansion of the universe was accelerating even though no theory at that time was predicting it. (Acceptance of novel observations).
3) Scientists accepted the data about Higgs boson and detection of gravity waves that provided strong confirmation of existing theories (Standard Model and GR).
4) Despite huge expectations at LHC that other heavier particles associated with super-symmetry will be found, scientists accepted when nothing was discovered and have gone back to the drawing board. (Acceptance of negative results). Similarly the absence of proton decay, something predicted by scientific theories that many believed were likely true.

Having the ability to modify one's perceptions and models of the world based on new evidence maybe a vice in some circles but its certainly the most important virtue of the scientific method.

There are no virtues of the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy writ large. Additionally, scientists don't even use that method.

It's a simple fact that most published research findings are false. The reasons for this are known. No one cares. Science is not about finding truth. It's about getting funding.

 

[sayak83]

This statement shows that you have no comprehension of the argument. Every new emerald that we observe is both grue and green. You expect the results from experiments to continue to be the same—and they are. Emeralds reliable continue to be the same color, but are they grue or are they green? Everyone agrees that they are green, but if you met an alien from another planet who was firmly convinced that they were grue, how would you convince him otherwise?

Suppose you are the alien. Explain to me why you think the emerald is grue.

 

[Zosimus]

What I would do is show him the results of a measurement of the wavelength of light reflected from the ruby. I would then claim that the measurement will not change over time. Since the grue situation requires a change in the actual measurement, a discontinuity, it is the one that can be discarded.

You have no comprehension of the subject at hand. But let's suppose that you do exactly what you have described. He is not convinced. Instead he takes the ruby and shows it to you under white light where it appears red and then shows it to you under blue light where it appears to be another color. He then shakes your hand and says, "You're completely refuted. You owe me a Guiness Stout." Are you convinced by this experiment that rubies are not red?

Induction is not a logical proof in the sense of mathematics. If that is what you are hoping for, then you will be seriously disappointed. Even in math, no amount of testing will absolutely prove a proposition without a general proof.

No, I would be satisfied if you could even show that induction generally moves you in the right direction.

No, it is the dechlorination to push on in the face of uncertainty. The fact is that it has been shown to be quite workable.

What you mean to say is that your parents exhortations convinced you to continue trying. Your faith overcame the obstacles in your path.

A. You did not establish anything about the real world. You only showed something about a certain (poor) formal system.
B. You did NOT show that 'truth' exists. You merely showed one statement to be true.

By showing that one statement is true, I have shown that there is at least one truth. Additionally, I have shown that it is possible to determine truth a priori so that is two truths.

How would you proceed empirically to demonstrate that round squares do not exist? How would you proceed empirically to show that if John is taller than Mary and Mary is taller than Jose then John is taller than Jose?

But it *can* be a very relevant question whether, for example, baryon number, is preserved close to a black hole. The question isn't whether the *formal* statement that 2+2=4 is correct. The question is whether that formal statement is useful to help explain and predict certain things about the real world. The *only* reason it is useful is that there are certain 'conservation laws' which are described additively. But the validity of those laws needs to be tested. They cannot simply be assumed a priori.

Black holes do not exist.

No, my logic is that if it *isn't* both a wave and a particle, it wouldn't show the properties of both.

Do you disagree that
P=>Q
~Q
----------
~P

is a logical deduction?

I do not disagree. I am simply saying that this characterization is so simplistic as to be unworkable in the real world.

Do you think that finding a black raven increases the probability that all ravens are black?

 

[Zosimus]

I am still waiting for you to provide the infallible logical rule by which to decide which of the solid objects I am supposed to put in my mouth to eat. Getting very hungry. Please help.[/QUOTE]
There's a queue, mate. No cuts, no buts, no coconuts.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, and what should you do if you get such a result? Or any result for that matter? You should *check* to see if your equipment is malfunctioning. You should *check* and *rethink* to see if your experiment is badly designed. You should *check* that you have your instruments calibrated. You should, in fact, consider as many possibilities as possible and make sure none of them show your results to be wrong. And, in fact, one way to tell the difference between a good scientist and a bad one is whether they do exactly this.

There was actually a case very similar to this not so long ago. The people at CERN found that, by their measurements, neutrinos were going faster than light.
How should they react? If the results were true, it would be ground-breaking and revolutionary. It would require a revision of special relativity. That would be a HUGE deal.

So, what did they do? They went over everything they could think of that would be a problem: was their equipment malfunctioning? Did they neglect to consider the effects from general relativity? Was there a design flaw that they hadn't considered? Was a calibration off? When they were unable to come up any explanation for why they might get a false result, they published their data.

And this is *exactly* what they should have done. Maybe, just maybe, they found a case where neutrinos do move faster than light. But, being human, they presented the case and asked for input.

Eventually, it was found that an extra loop in a wire caused a delay in a signal that negated the result. When the same experiment was done with the correction, no superluminous neutrinos were found.

So, yes, there are always possible alternative explanations. If you come up with one, express it and then *test* to see if that explanation works in practice. If it does, it might well negate your conclusions. Otherwise, you stick with the results of the measurements. Does it seem like an infinite regress? It might. To you. In practice, that regress terminates fairly quickly in any given situation.

You seem to be of the opinion that experiments are done once and for all. But it is *exactly* for the reasons you mention that this is not the case. It shows why *independent* studies and peer review are required to do any actual science.

What you are actually expressing is your admiration of bias. People were so convinced that nothing could go faster than the speed of light that they refused to accept the experiment. They went over everything until they found something that might have caused an anomalous reading and by fixing it they came up with something that fit in well with the model, ruffled no feathers, and made no waves.

Maybe the anomalous readings were caused by a loose wire. Maybe they weren't. However, it is still confirmation bias at its finest.

 

[Zosimus]

I was interested and attempted to do it. When I found out I could, I continued. I don't know whether math is important in any grand scheme. It simply tickled my fancy. I didn't know ahead of time that I could learn it. I attempted to and found that I could. From positions of ignorance, testing different alternatives is a good strategy.

What scientific tests have you done to determine that "From positions of ignorance, testing different alternatives is a good strategy."?

 

[Zosimus]

But how do you know any of the resources available will meet those goals?

This is not the point. Imagine that you are in a burning house. It is becoming difficult to breathe. You feel that you cannot stay. There is a window nearby that leads outside. You are on the third floor. You do not know where the window leads and you do not know whether you can survive a fall from that height? What do you do? To me, there is no issue. You simply go out the window and hope for the best. I don't stop to logically analyze whether going out the window will be better. I'm not going to try to set up a scientific experiment to see whether dropping human-like things results in excessive damage to them and try to extrapolate whether it will cause excessive damage to me.

So there is no rational way to know that eating certain things will help assuage hunger?

You come to a traffic light. It is 2 am in the morning. You see no cross traffic. You see no police officer. The light is red. Thinking back, you have never seen a police officer at this location. Do you run the red light? To me, the answer is simple. You do not run the red light. The potential gain if you are right (getting home a few minutes early) is not worth the risk of an accident, a ticket, or higher insurance premiums. It's not a question of whether the decision was empirically or logically justified. It's a question of payoffs.

 

[Polymath257]

What you are actually expressing is your admiration of bias. People were so convinced that nothing could go faster than the speed of light that they refused to accept the experiment. They went over everything until they found something that might have caused an anomalous reading and by fixing it they came up with something that fit in well with the model, ruffled no feathers, and made no waves.

Maybe the anomalous readings were caused by a loose wire. Maybe they weren't. However, it is still confirmation bias at its finest.

Completely false. While nobody thought it likely that the results were correct, the results were published. Alternatives were discussed. The proposed 'solution' was tested. This is the very antithesis of bias. it is objectively looking at the whole range of possibilities and determining which is, in fact, the case.

 

[Zosimus]

Suppose you are the alien. Explain to me why you think the emerald is grue.

Every emeralds that the alien has seen in the past has been grue. He has never even heard of this weird word "green." Grue has had good predictive success in his culture for generations. On the power of grue, they have designed great spaceships that have crossed the gulf between planets. Every electrical circuit in his ship is designed so that the negative pole is connected with a bleen wire and the positive pole is connected with a grue wire. Why should he argue against this success? It is far more than the success that human civilization has come up with. Humans don't even have warp drive yet.

 

[sayak83]

There are no virtues of the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy writ large. Additionally, scientists don't even use that method.

It's a simple fact that most published research findings are false. The reasons for this are known. No one cares. Science is not about finding truth. It's about getting funding.

Of course they are. I would be lucky if more than 2% of my ideas and 10% of my research results turn out to be fruitful avenues for advancing the field. A theoretician can expect even less. Individual scientific papers are communications between scientists regarding ideas they pursue in their labs and their initial preliminary findings. Only about 5-10% of the ideas and results of various papers ever go anywhere. These are the ones that get successfully replicated and built upon through further successful studies. Once this happens and a set of ideas stand the test of repeated validation, they get written about in technical monograms, often get picked up by applied scientists and used in turn and eventually found its way to students and the industry R&D (like quantum computing, semiconductor technology, AI etc.) Science labs and groups work as start-ups with ideas as products and compete with each other in this fashion. Like all startups, only a few ideas work out and the later efforts are built in expanding these.

 

[Polymath257]

You have no comprehension of the subject at hand. But let's suppose that you do exactly what you have described. He is not convinced. Instead he takes the ruby and shows it to you under white light where it appears red and then shows it to you under blue light where it appears to be another color. He then shakes your hand and says, "You're completely refuted. You owe me a Guiness Stout." Are you convinced by this experiment that rubies are not red?

Yes, actually. it shows that under white llight it is red and under blue light it is a different color. So, the ambient light is important for color determination. This is useful information. Next, we might try to determine if there is something about the ruby that is related to color that does NOT depend on ambient light. Or, we might look for ways to predict the color based on the ambient light. In any case, it would show that 'color' is something that is not simply a property of the ruby.

What you mean to say is that your parents exhortations convinced you to continue trying. Your faith overcame the obstacles in your path.

Nope, neither. I tested to see. My interest motivated me to see if I could understand. That isn't faith. It is interest.

By showing that one statement is true, I have shown that there is at least one truth. Additionally, I have shown that it is possible to determine truth a priori so that is two truths.

You have deduced two results from a very limited formal system. But those results show nothing at all about the real world.

How would you proceed empirically to demonstrate that round squares do not exist?

I would need a good definition of 'round' and 'square' first. Then I would attempt to figure out what a 'round hole that is square would look like'. I would attempt to create such and see if it was possible.

How would you proceed empirically to show that if John is taller than Mary and Mary is taller than Jose then John is taller than Jose?

I would test to see if height was reliably connected to a number and whether my intuition about 'taller' matched the mathematical model for 'greater height'. It is certainly possible, at least initially, that no such number could be found.

Black holes do not exist.

Prove it.

I do not disagree. I am simply saying that this characterization is so simplistic as to be unworkable in the real world.

Do you think that finding a black raven increases the probability that all ravens are black?

Each additional black raven that I see, without seeing a non-black raven increases my confidence that all ravens are black. When shown a white raven, that confidence goes to zero.

 

[Polymath257]

Every emeralds that the alien has seen in the past has been grue. He has never even heard of this weird word "green." Grue has had good predictive success in his culture for generations. On the power of grue, they have designed great spaceships that have crossed the gulf between planets. Every electrical circuit in his ship is designed so that the negative pole is connected with a bleen wire and the positive pole is connected with a grue wire. Why should he argue against this success? It is far more than the success that human civilization has come up with. Humans don't even have warp drive yet.

If his instruments measure 'grue', then I would expect his instruments to continue to measure that. Now, present to me an instrument that measures grue.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not the point. Imagine that you are in a burning house. It is becoming difficult to breathe. You feel that you cannot stay. There is a window nearby that leads outside. You are on the third floor. You do not know where the window leads and you do not know whether you can survive a fall from that height? What do you do? To me, there is no issue. You simply go out the window and hope for the best. I don't stop to logically analyze whether going out the window will be better. I'm not going to try to set up a scientific experiment to see whether dropping human-like things results in excessive damage to them and try to extrapolate whether it will cause excessive damage to me.

How do you know what the potential outcomes are?


You come to a traffic light. It is 2 am in the morning. You see no cross traffic. You see no police officer. The light is red. Thinking back, you have never seen a police officer at this location. Do you run the red light? To me, the answer is simple. You do not run the red light. The potential gain if you are right (getting home a few minutes early) is not worth the risk of an accident, a ticket, or higher insurance premiums. It's not a question of whether the decision was empirically or logically justified. It's a question of payoffs.[/QUOTE]

But how know those are the payoffs?

 

[sayak83]

Every emeralds that the alien has seen in the past has been grue. He has never even heard of this weird word "green." Grue has had good predictive success in his culture for generations. On the power of grue, they have designed great spaceships that have crossed the gulf between planets. Every electrical circuit in his ship is designed so that the negative pole is connected with a bleen wire and the positive pole is connected with a grue wire. Why should he argue against this success? It is far more than the success that human civilization has come up with. Humans don't even have warp drive yet.

How precisely does the alien see grue?
Actually since green is a subjective and unscientific property let us change the thought expt to some scientific property shall we? Say electrons with property charge e while a neutron has no charge i.e. neutral.

Object X is Farged if and only if X has charge e and has been observed before time t', Or X is neutral and is never observed before time t'.
Object X is Seutral if and only if X is neutral and has been observed before time t', OR X has charge e and has never been observed before time t'.

Then Farge and Seutral are simply related to property charge as follows:-

Farge F = [1-H(t-t')]*e
Seutral S = H(t-t')*e

where H(t-t') is the Heavyside function. See below,

Heaviside step function - Wikipedia


Given the definition of Farge and Seutral above, all theories and laws of electromagnetism can be derived as usual. The Heavyside function will make the mathematics more complicated but nothing else.

So what's the problem?

 

[Jose Fly]

You have completely mischaracterized my argument.

How so?

The same logic that you have employed could explain how astrology came to be. Or voodoo. Or witch doctors. People observed the world, saw patterns, and drew generalizations to explain them. Yet somehow you think that your generalizations are right whereas everyone else's generalizations are wrong. Why is this?

Simple. You test them.

You didn't know that?

You will doubtless say "because we see confirmation everywhere." Yes. And Marxists see confirmation for Marxism every time they pick up a newspaper. They see in every story the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois. Their theory is always confirmed.

No it's not. That's why you don't see scientific organizations operating according to astrology or voodoo. The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses.

You didn't know that?

What does this prove? Nothing. The only thing we know is that every data set can be seen through the lens of your pet theory.

Apparently you're operating under the common creationist misconception that because evolutionary theory hasn't been falsified, it can't be. Surely a logician such as yourself wouldn't make that sort of fundamental error, right?

 

[Sapiens]

Apparently you're operating under the common creationist misconception that because evolutionary theory hasn't been falsified, it can't be. Surely a logician such as yourself wouldn't make that sort of fundamental error, right?

... and the way to do so has been known for a long time; "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." the response given by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study.

 

[Derek500]

Yes, even having providing them with fossils of Synapsids from the Karoo Sequence, they still maintain that transitional fossils don't exist. Providing data to creationists is a complete waste of time.

For them it's: "Spookie supposedly said something; I believe it; that's it."

Reality won't ever change their minds at all.