|
|
#223
05-06-2006, 06:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
And this gets you back to the same dead end, because "replicable sufficient cause" is a Sharkeyism for "my standards for the scientific method", not standards that are generally applied in science. [/ QUOTE ] THE *** You are ignoring this user *** 
|
|
#226
05-06-2006, 06:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
The law of gravitation is observed everywhere and constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits. That orbiting bodies would follow elliptical paths is not, in itself, enough to assume the law of gravitation. [/ QUOTE ] I sort of agree, and I agree. I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding. That is the end of science, and the beginning of dogma. Every time folk accept that what we 'know' is true, progress stalls, and Newton is one of the best examples - a set of theories that so closely simulate reality that no-one seriously questioned them for centuries. But of course they were wrong, including the 'law' of gravity. I totally agree that observations of orbits are insufficient to assume the law of gravity, and would go further to say that I am uncomfortable with assuming any laws on any observations. There are regularities in nature, thank God, and we benefit hugely from finding and exploiting them (hence the science budget), but it is a common and unfortunate mistake to start believing we know anything for certain, for ever. It is almost axiomatic of science that the closer you are to the coalface, the less confidence you place in generalizations - you see the bumps. From this position, the best approach seems to tentatively hold generalizations, and to test them as rigorously as possible. The ones that stand the pressure are worth keeping for now. Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded. In nutrition, about five years I hear! But in astronomy, many decades. Theory half-life may give some idea of how close the field is to simulating reality with their theories, much as the rate of change in athletics world records may give some idea of how closely we approach human limits. You can draw your own conclusions about the relative accuracy of evolutionary biology. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one. [/ QUOTE ] This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How about 'We observe change in artificial selection. We speculate that nature might operate similarly. We look for evidence that natural selection has occurred and is occurring. We find it (usually indirect evidence). We conclude that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis'. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, but you are still merely supposing that the changes you observe are steps in the process you are looking for. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, though I would say 'hypothesising' rather than 'merely supposing'. In the same way one might merely suppose that animals moving at the time predicted by the MVT are doing so because it is optimal rather than for some other reason. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You may be right that evolution theory is bad science. It is almost certainly not accurate or complete as yet. But even if it is bad, it may still be the best there is. Do you dispute this? [/ QUOTE ] Can bad science also be best science? Possibly. The theory has produced much worthwhile investigation. This has happened before in the history of science, where incorrect premises have lead down paths which later bore fruit. [/ QUOTE ] This is not far from my position, though I suspect I'd rate the premises as 'uncertain' rather than 'incorrect'. I also suspect that, while our current theory is sure to be mistaken in several regards, we are not so far from the truth.
|
|
#227
05-06-2006, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
pilliwinks, I just want to express my admiration for everything you've written in this thread. It doesn't seem you'll get much further, but it's very well done nontheless. [/ QUOTE ] My pleasure. Literally [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] For me it's not about making converts, it's about exploring what I really think, and how reliable it is.
|
|
#228
05-06-2006, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey, CLOWNS *** You are ignoring this user *** [/ QUOTE ] Troll mommy must be very proud that you learned your troll lessons well.
|
|
#229
05-06-2006, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Appendix
[ QUOTE ]
I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, the phenomena described by the “law” of gravitation. Surely there’s no way out of that one. [ QUOTE ] That is the end of science, and the beginning of dogma. Every time folk accept that what we 'know' is true, progress stalls, and Newton is one of the best examples - a set of theories that so closely simulate reality that no-one seriously questioned them for centuries. But of course they were wrong, including the 'law' of gravity. [/ QUOTE ] Fair point, but dangerous territory. [ QUOTE ] I totally agree that observations of orbits are insufficient to assume the law of gravity, and would go further to say that I am uncomfortable with assuming any laws on any observations. There are regularities in nature, thank God, and we benefit hugely from finding and exploiting them (hence the science budget), but it is a common and unfortunate mistake to start believing we know anything for certain, for ever. It is almost axiomatic of science that the closer you are to the coalface, the less confidence you place in generalizations - you see the bumps. [/ QUOTE ] After exhaustive trial and error, the universality of a phenomenon becomes apparent, but, as you suggest, that’s no guarantee. Sometimes what’s being observed can be misconstrued, yet after a while certain things begin to look much more like objects of “reality” than artifacts of observation. [ QUOTE ] Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded. [/ QUOTE ] Certain foundational concepts are stable, no? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one. [/ QUOTE ] This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched. [/ QUOTE ] In the case of evolution, a formalization of such extendibility hasn’t even been published.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
