What constitutes proof? The snowflake test.

[Riverwolf]

(sorry not a science person)

Are you sure?

The burden of proof has to come from the believer because without concrete proof, science can only test the results of religious testimony, document, and witness. It can't prove it's valid.

Long story short: Science can't prove God

 

[Riverwolf]

Even though "hypothesis" describes a god more accurately than "theory", it still falls short of these standards.

"Failed hypothesis"

There. That's a much better phrase to use. It pretty much covers all the other gods from A to Z that people around the world worship.

Only if you regard Gods as hypotheses.

 

[outhouse]

Exactly, and science can't disprove God either, which is why the only reasonable position on God, besides being reasonable, is agnostic

I buy that position if one lacks historical and biblical knowledge.

With what I know, the only reasonable position is that of man creating all deities.


Science job has nothing to do with proving anything. Its just not what they do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you sure?

I don't speak in "science theology"; it just makes sense that that some things in life cannot be explained by our five senses. If some of us can get over that, hopefully, the debates will be, well, more trained... hopefully.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't speak in "science theology"; it just makes sense that that some things in life cannot be explained by our five senses. If some of us can get over that, hopefully, the debates will be, well, more trained... hopefully.

I just meant that the last bit of your post demonstrated good scientific thinking. You don't have to speak the accepted vernacular to think that way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

True. I see "science" (if there is another name for it, please tell) as analyzing the known and religion is emphasis the unknown. They really don't have to do with each other.

I buy that position if one lacks historical and biblical knowledge.

With what I know, the only reasonable position is that of man creating all deities.


Science job has nothing to do with proving anything. Its just not what they do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just meant that the last bit of your post demonstrated good scientific thinking. You don't have to speak the accepted vernacular to think that way.

Thanks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I wouldn't go as far as bestowing the exalted status of theory on the idea that a god exists.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for theory

That's just the 4a entry for theory in the OED. There are a to c for 4, and the total entry numbers for "theory" in the OED is 6. However, were we to examine some reference literature specific to the sciences, we might find something wholly different:
“The term ‘theory’ is used variously in science to refer to an unproven hunch, a scientific field (as in ‘electromagnetic theory’), and a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems.”
Theories, Scientific. In Craig, E. (ed.)(1998). Philosophy of Science (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Routledge.

When we find the word "theory" used in scientific literature (when it is not used colloquially) it falls into one of the following categories:

1) Theories we know to be wrong but still use (mostly classical physics)

2) Theories we know to be wrong but for some retain enough similarity to something in a useful theoretical framework to continue to refer to (Malthusian theory, Freudian theory, Hamilton's theory, Piagetian theory, behaviorist theory, etc.)

3) Theories known to be wrong but used in a historical context (Aristotle's "theory of virtue", the entirety of eugenics, etc.)

4) Theories that are methods for testing hypotheses (the theory of hypothesis testing, item response theory, theory of epistemic justification, sampling theory, data clustering theory, etc.)

5) Theories that are more general methods, techniques, tools, etc. (Group theory, statistical theory, number theory, set theory, information theory, computability theory, measure theory, game theory, graph theory, etc.)

6) Theories that are actually sciences or even interdisciplinary approaches (feminist theory, economic theory, linguistic theory, systems theory, political theory, psychological theory, learning theory, social science theory, etc.)

7) Theories that are theories in the scientific sense of frameworks (quantum field theory, theory of special relativity, theory of general relativity, evolutionary theory, string theory, quantum theory, phi theory, public choice theory, usage-based theory of language, multiple intelligence theory, embodied cognition theory, big bang theory, legal theory, neural network theory, etc.)

8)Theories when the words "theory" or "theories" are used in ways equivalent to terms like hypotheses, laws, & principles, etc. as well as other things such as personal models, etc. and it is often not possible to distinguish which use is which ("Emerson's and Molm's theory", "chaos theory", Lewinian field theory, postmodern theory, "theory of conquest", kin selection theory, modern management theory, Hebbian learning theory, System of care theory, etc.)

As for hypothesis:
"out of curiosity I went to the Credo Reference database and the Sage database and looked at various definitions in dictionaries of science for the word hypothesis. The first interesting thing was that some dictionaries didn't have an entry for hypothesis, such as the following:

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Dictionary of Developmental Biology and Embryology
A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science (this one actually did have an entry: "See significance")
Dictionary of Computing
Hargrave's Communications Dictionary

As for some dictionaries with an entry for hypothesis:

The Collins Dictionary of Biology has:

"a proposition assumed on the basis of observation which might account for or explain something which is not fully understood"

but the Collins Dictionary of Sociology has:

"any proposition which is advanced for testing or appraisal as a generalization about a phenomenon"

The Penguin Dictionary of Physics gives one definition:
"A provisional supposition that, if true, would account for known facts and serves as a starting point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved"

while The Penguin Dictionary of Science gives another:
"A provisional supposition, of questionable validity, that is used as a basis for further logical development. A hypothesis is tested by seeking experimental verification of predictions made using the hypothesis"

Same with Sage's dictionaries.

The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods has:

"An untested assertion about the relationship between two or more variables. The validity of such an assertion is assessed by examining the extent to which it is, or is not supported by data generated by empirical inquiry."

while The Sage Dictionary of Sociology has:

"This is a proposition (usually containing the two elements of a cause and an effect) that is framed in such as way as to be appraised or tested; ‘Catholic states are more repressive than Protestant ones’ is an example. The important point about an hypothesis is that it should be formulated in such a way that it is clear what would count as a test. In this example, the supposed ‘cause’ (the religious culture of the state) is relatively straight-forward but the effect (‘being repressive’) would require considerable elaboration before we could agree on what would count as appropriate measures."

There were some pretty complete definitions, but they were basically encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries.

Also, although I didn't see a dictionary for something like AI or machine learning, I went with the next best thing I could easily access: Springer's Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, where we find:
"Learning can be viewed as a search through the space of all sentences in a concept description language for a sentence that best describes the data. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a search through all hypotheses in a hypothesis space. In either case, a generality relation usually determines the structure of the search space.""
(for my full post see here)

 

[shawn001]

He's quibbling, pointing out the chemical difference (imbedded deuterium) but not the structural identity, which is what the old saw is referring to.

Then he points out that arms don't start on the flat sides but then shows them growing out the flat sides of the arms. And something else he completely ignores is that all 6 arms grow at the same rate and are identical in a given flake. How does that happen? Which is more amazing, that all snowflakes are (essentially) different, or that all of their 6 arms are exactly the same.

Good pics in the video though.

"Q: How are snowflakes formed?

A: A snowflake begins to form when an extremely cold water droplet freezes onto a pollen or dust particle in the sky. This creates an ice crystal. As the ice crystal falls to the ground, water vapor freezes onto the primary crystal, building new crystals – the six arms of the snowflake.

That’s the short answer.

The more complex explanation is this: "

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The more complex explanation is this

Then there's the complexity. See attached.

 

[shawn001]

Since I also worked with rocks and minerals, crystals form naturally for all kind of physics reasons or chemistry.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since I also worked with rocks and minerals, crystals form naturally for all kind of physics reasons or chemistry.

They are a fascinating subject. Crystallization processes & structures are found everywhere, form snowflakes to DNA. While I can't share my books (at least not until the internet allows teleportation), you might find interesting some of the INI videotaped talks/seminars in these series :
The Mathematics of Liquid Crystals
Liquid Crystal Defects and their Geometry, Active and Solid Liquid Crystals, and Related Systems
Mathematical Modelling and Analysis of Complex Fluids and Active Media in Evolving Domains
Mathematics of Liquid Crystals: industrially inspired problems
Statistical Mechanics of Molecular and Cellular Biological Systems

 

[Khatru]

Only if you regard Gods as hypotheses.

Yes indeed.

Although "failed hypotheses" seems as good a way as any to describe the hundreds, maybe thousands, of gods that people have claimed existed.

 

[Khatru]

That's just the 4a entry for theory in the OED. There are a to c for 4, and the total entry numbers for "theory" in the OED is 6. However, were we to examine some reference literature specific to the sciences, we might find something wholly different:
“The term ‘theory’ is used variously in science to refer to an unproven hunch, a scientific field (as in ‘electromagnetic theory’), and a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems.”
Theories, Scientific. In Craig, E. (ed.)(1998). Philosophy of Science (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Routledge.

When we find the word "theory" used in scientific literature (when it is not used colloquially) it falls into one of the following categories:

1) Theories we know to be wrong but still use (mostly classical physics)

2) Theories we know to be wrong but for some retain enough similarity to something in a useful theoretical framework to continue to refer to (Malthusian theory, Freudian theory, Hamilton's theory, Piagetian theory, behaviorist theory, etc.)

3) Theories known to be wrong but used in a historical context (Aristotle's "theory of virtue", the entirety of eugenics, etc.)

4) Theories that are methods for testing hypotheses (the theory of hypothesis testing, item response theory, theory of epistemic justification, sampling theory, data clustering theory, etc.)

5) Theories that are more general methods, techniques, tools, etc. (Group theory, statistical theory, number theory, set theory, information theory, computability theory, measure theory, game theory, graph theory, etc.)

6) Theories that are actually sciences or even interdisciplinary approaches (feminist theory, economic theory, linguistic theory, systems theory, political theory, psychological theory, learning theory, social science theory, etc.)

7) Theories that are theories in the scientific sense of frameworks (quantum field theory, theory of special relativity, theory of general relativity, evolutionary theory, string theory, quantum theory, phi theory, public choice theory, usage-based theory of language, multiple intelligence theory, embodied cognition theory, big bang theory, legal theory, neural network theory, etc.)

8)Theories when the words "theory" or "theories" are used in ways equivalent to terms like hypotheses, laws, & principles, etc. as well as other things such as personal models, etc. and it is often not possible to distinguish which use is which ("Emerson's and Molm's theory", "chaos theory", Lewinian field theory, postmodern theory, "theory of conquest", kin selection theory, modern management theory, Hebbian learning theory, System of care theory, etc.)

As for hypothesis:
"out of curiosity I went to the Credo Reference database and the Sage database and looked at various definitions in dictionaries of science for the word hypothesis. The first interesting thing was that some dictionaries didn't have an entry for hypothesis, such as the following:

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Dictionary of Developmental Biology and Embryology
A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science (this one actually did have an entry: "See significance")
Dictionary of Computing
Hargrave's Communications Dictionary

As for some dictionaries with an entry for hypothesis:

The Collins Dictionary of Biology has:

"a proposition assumed on the basis of observation which might account for or explain something which is not fully understood"

but the Collins Dictionary of Sociology has:

"any proposition which is advanced for testing or appraisal as a generalization about a phenomenon"

The Penguin Dictionary of Physics gives one definition:
"A provisional supposition that, if true, would account for known facts and serves as a starting point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved"

while The Penguin Dictionary of Science gives another:
"A provisional supposition, of questionable validity, that is used as a basis for further logical development. A hypothesis is tested by seeking experimental verification of predictions made using the hypothesis"

Same with Sage's dictionaries.

The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods has:

"An untested assertion about the relationship between two or more variables. The validity of such an assertion is assessed by examining the extent to which it is, or is not supported by data generated by empirical inquiry."

while The Sage Dictionary of Sociology has:

"This is a proposition (usually containing the two elements of a cause and an effect) that is framed in such as way as to be appraised or tested; ‘Catholic states are more repressive than Protestant ones’ is an example. The important point about an hypothesis is that it should be formulated in such a way that it is clear what would count as a test. In this example, the supposed ‘cause’ (the religious culture of the state) is relatively straight-forward but the effect (‘being repressive’) would require considerable elaboration before we could agree on what would count as appropriate measures."

There were some pretty complete definitions, but they were basically encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries.

Also, although I didn't see a dictionary for something like AI or machine learning, I went with the next best thing I could easily access: Springer's Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, where we find:
"Learning can be viewed as a search through the space of all sentences in a concept description language for a sentence that best describes the data. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a search through all hypotheses in a hypothesis space. In either case, a generality relation usually determines the structure of the search space.""
(for my full post see here)

A detailed and comprehensive post - thanks.

Would you agree that, whatever the category, a theory still represents our best explanation for something?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes indeed.

Although "failed hypotheses" seems as good a way as any to describe the hundreds, maybe thousands, of gods that people have claimed existed.

Only when looked at through the lens that early Christian writers presented them as, in an attempt to discredit them as "unintellectual and dirty peasant superstition" when next to their logically, rationally, and observationally consistent (at the time) Deus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Would you agree that, whatever the category, a theory still represents our best explanation for something?

Unless we are relying on many-valued logics, it can't. Because mutually incompatible theories exist simultaneously and do so for decades. My go to example is embodied cognition vs. the "classical" cognitive science amodal view. Embodied cognition is a theory held by multiple researchers in fields as diverse as linguistics and neuroscience. As it challenged the view that preceded it, it has been a conflicting theory since its origins as far back as 1980 (and perhaps earlier, depending upon when one chooses to draw the line between "proto-embodiment" and the modern theory). Clearly, as over several decades both of these theories have existed not only as mutually exclusive explanations but each involves explanations so broad and so fundamental that there are few topics that involve cognition, the brain, the mind, etc., that do not involve one or the other (but not both) of these theories.

Additionally, there are entire fields dedicated to the study of theory construction/generation. In other words, we have many theories about how scientists should construct theories. These cannot be the best explanation of anything, because they are (like so many other theories) methodological.

Finally, as so many things we call "theories" are what we regard as obviously wrong (more or less all of classical physics), they can't possibly represent our best explanation.

The theories that do tend to be that which you describe are more like fields. Evolutionary theory, for example, isn't a singular theory but almost more broad than any scientific discipline, with research being conducted in fields from astrobiology to computational intelligence. Anthropogenic global warming would be another example of such a "theory". What people who are't scientists mean by "theory" is really a theoretical framework within which research is conducted and interpreted, including the development of theories and the testing of these as well as hypotheses, not that the two are necessarily distinct).

 

[Khatru]

Only when looked at through the lens that early Christian writers presented them as, in an attempt to discredit them as "unintellectual and dirty peasant superstition" when next to their logically, rationally, and observationally consistent (at the time) Deus

Are believers ever observationally consistent?

Do believers apply the same standards of consistency to other beliefs as they do to their own?

 

[Khatru]

Unless we are relying on many-valued logics, it can't. Because mutually incompatible theories exist simultaneously and do so for decades. My go to example is embodied cognition vs. the "classical" cognitive science amodal view. Embodied cognition is a theory held by multiple researchers in fields as diverse as linguistics and neuroscience. As it challenged the view that preceded it, it has been a conflicting theory since its origins as far back as 1980 (and perhaps earlier, depending upon when one chooses to draw the line between "proto-embodiment" and the modern theory). Clearly, as over several decades both of these theories have existed not only as mutually exclusive explanations but each involves explanations so broad and so fundamental that there are few topics that involve cognition, the brain, the mind, etc., that do not involve one or the other (but not both) of these theories.

Additionally, there are entire fields dedicated to the study of theory construction/generation. In other words, we have many theories about how scientists should construct theories. These cannot be the best explanation of anything, because they are (like so many other theories) methodological.

Finally, as so many things we call "theories" are what we regard as obviously wrong (more or less all of classical physics), they can't possibly represent our best explanation.

The theories that do tend to be that which you describe are more like fields. Evolutionary theory, for example, isn't a singular theory but almost more broad than any scientific discipline, with research being conducted in fields from astrobiology to computational intelligence. Anthropogenic global warming would be another example of such a "theory". What people who are't scientists mean by "theory" is really a theoretical framework within which research is conducted and interpreted, including the development of theories and the testing of these as well as hypotheses, not that the two are necessarily distinct).

Another interesting post - thank you.

Maybe I'm being over-simplistic but what you're saying is that fields of study, rather than specific theories, represent our best possible explanations?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Another interesting post - thank you.

Maybe I'm being over-simplistic but what you're saying is that fields of study, rather than specific theories, represent our best possible explanations?

Pretty much, yes. Given any field, the extent to which the research and literature reviews converge is probably the best metric for "certainty" in the sciences. This is particularly true when research results in models that are predictive, as the more accurate any theory is the more it is able to accurately predict what future research. When future research does indeed find what was predicted, this is about as powerful and convincing evidence in favor of a given theory as is possible based upon empirical findings.

 

[Thief]

How does one prove the imagination of something that doesn't exist ?
How does one prove the absense of that entity,
or just accept the lack of the reality of it's absense ?
I'm getting pretty old and I still can't figure out that thought.
~
'mud

That's using your imagination....and it seems you exist.
(you're not going to start posting like GNG are you?)