Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Science without empirical evidence?

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Theory - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation...

If theories depend upon testing, then they can not be separated from it.

empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I interpret this as meaning that theory must rest upon experience and that theories in their own right cannot be validly used to create more theory. At each juncture, there has to be some grounding in our physical senses.
Rob
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:34:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If were speaking of the natural sciences than I would assume so since scientific theories arise as explanations for physical phenomena. There has to be some way to relate that theory to whatever phenomena it seeks to explain. I think that's what one means by empirical testing.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:10:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

It depends what were defining as a science here. Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence but the laws of mathematics can be figured out through deductive reasoning.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:26:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.

No. To be a theory, an idea must have evidence. We have observations that indicate the existence of matter outside of the solar system, just as we have smashed atoms apart and watched to see what came out. Quantum physics begin to explain the observations at particle accelerators, not the other way around.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:36:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:26:01 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.

No. To be a theory, an idea must have evidence. We have observations that indicate the existence of matter outside of the solar system, just as we have smashed atoms apart and watched to see what came out. Quantum physics begin to explain the observations at particle accelerators, not the other way around.

Explain to me what empirical evidence we have for the Big Bang theory.

Or, what empirical evidence we have for the black hole theory.

Or, what empirical evidence we have for the Poincare Theory.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:39:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:26:01 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.

No. To be a theory, an idea must have evidence. We have observations that indicate the existence of matter outside of the solar system, just as we have smashed atoms apart and watched to see what came out. Quantum physics begin to explain the observations at particle accelerators, not the other way around.

And also, what do you mean by this, "smashed atoms apart to see what came out" as a correlation to "observations that evidence matter outside of this solar system?"

Fission has absolutely nothing to do with statistical and logical extrapolations for what is accepted as true in the scientific community about the universe outside of our solar system.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:57:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:36:52 AM, Ren wrote:
Explain to me what empirical evidence we have for the Big Bang theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or, what empirical evidence we have for the black hole theory.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu...

Or, what empirical evidence we have for the Poincare Theory.

not sure what you're talking about here. i managed to find both a mathematical theorem and a "conjuncture" attached to this guys name, neither of which are scientific theories in the sense that they need to be justified by evidence the way the others are.

anyways, "empirical" doesn't mean capable of being seen/touched with one's own eyes/without technological help. all our telescopes and other fancy scientific gadgets help us gather the evidence upon which theories are built.

in response to the OP i would say that science requires empirical evidence eventually... which is why string theory, while based on science, is atm just a lot of interesting speculation.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 5:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:42:40 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Theory - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation...

If theories depend upon testing, then they can not be separated from it.

I'm not sure what you mean here - testing can be performed without deriving empirical evidence specifically. Examples are the links Belle posted as a reply. She proposed that indirect observations of phenomena that suggest the existence or interaction with the Big Bang or black holes can suffice as empirical observations, but those activities only suffice as empirical evidence of the phenomena they're observing, not what they indirectly suggest.

empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Here, this clearly says that empirical evidence cannot be theory. In other words, something that is theoretical cannot have empirical evidence. Something that has empirical evidence is not theoretical, it is actual. You do not believe it's true due to testing, you know its true from observing it. There is empirical evidence for oxygen, for example, but not for black holes.

I interpret this as meaning that theory must rest upon experience and that theories in their own right cannot be validly used to create more theory. At each juncture, there has to be some grounding in our physical senses.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:00:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:57:42 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:36:52 AM, Ren wrote:

theorem and a "conjuncture" attached to this guys name

So, it was just mindblowing that I wrote "theory" instead of "theorem?" A theorem is a proposition, and the poincare theorem is meant ti explain phenomena, making it theoretical.

anyways, "empirical" doesn't mean capable of being seen/touched with one's own eyes/without technological help. all our telescopes and other fancy scientific gadgets help us gather the evidence upon which theories are built.

Yes, they do -- they also help us gather empirical evidence for things we now know to exist, like Jupiter. This does not mean that evidence gathered by these instruments is strictly empirical.

in response to the OP i would say that science requires empirical evidence eventually... which is why string theory, while based on science, is atm just a lot of interesting speculation.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:02:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:57:42 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:36:52 AM, Ren wrote:

in response to the OP i would say that science requires empirical evidence eventually... which is why string theory, while based on science, is atm just a lot of interesting speculation.

Lol.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 4:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 6:02:57 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:57:42 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:36:52 AM, Ren wrote:

in response to the OP i would say that science requires empirical evidence eventually... which is why string theory, while based on science, is atm just a lot of interesting speculation.

Lol.

This is actually a good case in point.

String Theory WAS just an interesting speculation.

However, scientists now have ways to empirically test results with predictions for how the results should be (http://www.universetoday.com...)

That makes makes the speculation become, technically, a hypothesis.

Because it is a hypothesis it can, with repeated testing, became an ACTUAL theory.

As the first test shows, "theory" may be a bit strong considering the current evidence (http://io9.com...).
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

No. Not really. Well kind of.

It depends on what you mean. You can have a strong theory that explains evidence, but itself had no empirical evidence; for example the Higgs field theory has no (as yet) empirical evidence supporting it, but is relatively strong.

Special and general relativity were strong theories, that explained a lot of things, but until its predictions were tested it had no evidence for it.

For a theory to be strong, though, it must make predictions so that empirical evidence can be found.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:59:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:39:09 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:26:01 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.

No. To be a theory, an idea must have evidence. We have observations that indicate the existence of matter outside of the solar system, just as we have smashed atoms apart and watched to see what came out. Quantum physics begin to explain the observations at particle accelerators, not the other way around.

And also, what do you mean by this, "smashed atoms apart to see what came out" as a correlation to "observations that evidence matter outside of this solar system?"


See the bolded statements? You mentioned the composition of atoms as something we don't have any evidence for. I wasn't linking it to "observations that evidence matter outside of this solar system."
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:00:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:59:54 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:39:09 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:26:01 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:08:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Yes. One example is the composition of an atom. Another is the existence of matter outside of our solar system.

Some things are beyond our reach, but can be explained with mathematical proofs. Until the Hadron Collider (and other subsequent particle accelerators) was built, quantum physics was almost entirely conceptual, for example.

No. To be a theory, an idea must have evidence. We have observations that indicate the existence of matter outside of the solar system, just as we have smashed atoms apart and watched to see what came out. Quantum physics begin to explain the observations at particle accelerators, not the other way around.

And also, what do you mean by this, "smashed atoms apart to see what came out" as a correlation to "observations that evidence matter outside of this solar system?"


See the bolded statements? You mentioned the composition of atoms as something we don't have any evidence for. I wasn't linking it to "observations that evidence matter outside of this solar system."

? :\

Nuclear fission causes atomic explosions. We don't observe anything but aftermath from that.

We study subatomic particles by relative inference. That is, we understand how they should react under certain conditions, and thus, this is how we interact with them. More specifically, we accelerate them inside of colliders and measure the energies they give off when they collide.

So, for all intents and purposes, the most we can do is be extremely close to certain of what an atom is comprised. If there were two subatomic particles that acted exactly the same under those conditions, for example, then scientists would remain completely oblivious to at least one of them.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 1:56:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

Of course... the failure of todays science is to not realize that.. but they have such a guard up. Because when they ventur they have to fend off the intellectual barbarianism that storms the gates.. That is what sparked the logical positivists...because of social science and people trying to force in quackery. but we have cognitive science(which is really the only trustible psychology)(but that is kinda hush)..
THere are clear and justified ways to study mind, but if it opens up to much.. then people come in with there spirituality.. and gods.. and after lives. ... and non-logicizable mental entities so they have to keep there guard up..

Don't confuse that with Social Sciences: you should flood thier gates.. anything will be true.. forever..

social sciences are pseudo sciences....... they just adapted the name Science 200 years after the scienctific revolution to give them prestige.. but they never met the criteria for it. ...... They tried to apply the scientific method but it didnt work ... that is how we got non-sciences like political science and motivation al science and socialogy.. personality psychology and the list goes on..
There was always constraversy but when the wave of post-modern relativistic ideology sweep over, questions stopped... .because now everything is relative.... (awsome no body can't be wrong now.. yay)... the earth mabye true to you ... but to me its false... and we are both right.... yaaayy.. now we vote on truths.. yaay.. if more of us think the earth is flat then round the earth somehow changes to flat.. yaaaaaaaaaay isnt this awsome you geys..

The real scientific method:
1. make observations, 2. form a (predicting)hypothesis 3. test(experiments)
4. it is now a theory and you could extend it and test the new extention.. I it false you ethier need to readust hypothese or scrap it..

Each progressive addition of theory becomes stronge(more accurate) with the increase of predicting power. Those enabling our ability to make better decsion and our ability to maniplute the world in our favour...

social sciences are pseudo sciences....... they just adapted the name Science 200 years after the scienctific revolution to give them prestige.. but they never met the criteria for it. ...... They tried to apply the scientific method but it didnt work ... that is how we got non-sciences like political science and motivation al science and socialogy.. personality psychology and the list goes on..
There was always constraversy but when the wave of post-modern relativistic ideology sweep over, questions stopped... .because now everything is relative.... (awsome no body can't be wrong now.. yay)... the earth mabye true to you ... but to me its false... and we are both right.... yaaayy.. now we vote on truths.. yaay.. if more of us think the earth is flat then round the earth somehow changes to flat.. yaaaaaaaaaay isnt this awsome you geys..

Most social science methods.
1. we guess a pure guess no support nothing....(anything we make up)(you should bring the bible there is will support evidence of god.. honestly... )

2. we assume the guess true(true score) and anything againt it is ERROR(no matter what they say it could never be wrong..lol)
3. then make theories which are comfirmed by correlation with (confabulated guess)
4. if it does confire then it is considerd as part of the explanation of the varience in the guess..(thats right "explanation of the varience"... :l .what ever the hell that means. I know what it means.. but its BS"

5. if something contradicts the guess it is just considered error..(every contridicting evidence gets brushed off.. and error of noise..)
there is no falsification principle....(no way to show it true or false.)

6. when they can't get any explanations they tweak the definition to try and make it fit together...

ITs Fake science in which the (fake)scientist of it don't even know.. because they are never taught the philosophy of science(why it works) so they just follow the rules like a set of commandments

attack thier gates...

Most social science methods.
1. we guess a pure guess no support nothing....(anything we make up)(you should bring the bible there it will support evidence of god.. honestly... )

2. we assume the guess true(true score) and anything againt it is ERROR(no matter what they say it could never be wrong..lol)

3. then make theories which are comfirmed by correlation with (confabulated guess)

4. if it does confire then it is considerd as part of the explanation of the varience in the guess..(thats right "explanation of the varience"... :l .what ever the hell that means. I know what it means.. its a complication way of saying noting. its BS"

5. if something contradicts the guess it is just considered error..(every contridicting evidence gets brushed off.. and error of noise..)
there is no falsification principle....(no way to show it true or false.)

6. when they can't get any explanations they tweak the definition to try and make it fit together...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 5:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 7:10:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

It depends what were defining as a science here. Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence but the laws of mathematics can be figured out through deductive reasoning.

I beg to differ. The core principals of mathematics ARE empirically evidenced (inductive reasoning) and then there are other concepts that are deduced.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 3:03:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 5:11:13 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:10:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:16:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can you have a strong scientific theory without empirical.evidence?

It depends what were defining as a science here. Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence but the laws of mathematics can be figured out through deductive reasoning.

I beg to differ. The core principals of mathematics ARE empirically evidenced (inductive reasoning) and then there are other concepts that are deduced.

lol.. beg as you will. That is just a bold assertion, back it up.
I am fully aware that what you are saying it the most accepted version. Seconly induction is a mental process of reason..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 3:16:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 3:03:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/2/2012 5:11:13 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

I beg to differ. The core principals of mathematics ARE empirically evidenced (inductive reasoning) and then there are other concepts that are deduced.

lol.. beg as you will. That is just a bold assertion, back it up.
There is no other alternative, that's why. Can you show otherwise?

I am fully aware that what you are saying it the most accepted version. Seconly induction is a mental process of reason.
Did I say otherwise?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.