Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do You Think An Orthodoxy Prevails In Science

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:56:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

That may be true, but has nothing to do with orthodoxy.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

"Many scientists believe" =/= "Overwhelming evidence". The latter is not "orthodoxy" in the negative sense of the word by any stretch.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:06:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think some equations in Quantum Mechanics are awful, and some are elegant. It does not make the awful stuff wrong, just overly complicated and hazardous to my sanity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

You need to understand the scientific method to understand scientific consensus, after all that is essentially what it is.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 9:39:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:56:16 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

"Many scientists believe" =/= "Overwhelming evidence". The latter is not "orthodoxy" in the negative sense of the word by any stretch.

So thought some Greeks of epicycles and spontenous generation advocates too who had 'overwhelming evidence' supporting their theories.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:05:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 9:39:03 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/13/2014 12:56:16 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

"Many scientists believe" =/= "Overwhelming evidence". The latter is not "orthodoxy" in the negative sense of the word by any stretch.

So thought some Greeks of epicycles and spontenous generation advocates too who had 'overwhelming evidence' supporting their theories.

Except they didn't have overwhelming evidence. They had no evidence. They had assumptions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:12:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it.

The scientific method isn't a belief it is a process by which theories can be evaluated based on empirical evidence. You might say holding that the scientific method is preferable to other methods of evaluating theories (making stuff up, comparison with ancient texts, etc) is a belief but even that is a stretch because it can be demonstrated that the scientific method works better than the alternatives... so no belief is necessary.

When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

I don't think you understand the process by which scientist at that level operate. There may be multiple competing theories to explain a phenomenon. Dedicating oneself to trying to develop and prove out on of those theories may take years or even decades of a scientist's time. So before they dedicate themselves to that work they have to "prescreen" to decide where they will focus their attention. Some scientists have historically "prescreened" based on the theory they find as "beautiful". But no scientist would say one theory was correct over another based on "beauty", it simple a criteria they may use to decide where they will focus their efforts.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

Consensus is reached because of overwhelming evidence. There is an overwhelming consensus that the Earth is roughly spherical. Is that orthodoxy? If so then all you have really accomplished is making the definition of orthodoxy so broad that it loses meaning.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 4:39:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

Beauty when physicists use it refers to simplicity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 5:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

There is certainly is an orthodoxy in science. It is fair to say where there is an opinion their is orthodoxy. How could there be human thought/opinion without orthodoxy? Where doesn't it exist when pertaining to humans? The important thing is not whether it exists, but how much of it exists.

A great place to see it in action is the development of quantum physics. QM is the most accurate predicting theory in the history of mankind. It has never been wrong.

Max Planck took some experimental data, the intensity and frequency of light from a heated metal, and decided to make an equation to fit the data. Working it backwards he decided make a formula that fit the experimental data. In order to do that he needed a fudge factor to fit. It was what we now call planck's constant.

His formula of black box radiation was in direct violation of Newton's universal equation of motion and the laws of electromagnetism, so while it solved the ultraviolet problem, it was ignored as a whole.

His formula introduced the concept that a small thing could hold on to energy and only release it in packets of energy now called quanta. Einstein went with it and used Planck's work to imagine that a photon could be a particle, which explained why it some times ejected electrons when hitting metal and sometimes it didn't. His idea of light acting like a particle rather than a wave was ignored for some time as well.

Ultimately was around 20 years before there was consensus to abandon Newtonian physics as a universal truth. Could there be many moments in that 20 years where one could conclude orthodoxy hindered the acceptance of QM? Sure.

But here is the difference between religious orthodoxy and science orthodoxy. Religious orthodoxy does not try to uncover the truth. It tries to protect what it calls the truth. Science orthodoxy is just the opposite. It is willing to change the definition of truth when there is enough evidence to do so.

Science has to some times have people spit out the absurd. A lot of what is spit out is just wrong, but it can't progress unless people are willing to do that and people are willing to test it by either seeing if empirical data fits the theory or disproves it. It if disproves it, it has to be altered.

There are at least 6 or so different schools of QM. All agree that the formulas that comprise of QM are spot on, but they all differ in trying to explain why we see the behavior that we do. There is not a consensus at that level. They all can't be right, but with more understanding and evidence some schools will be abandoned.

How many religions have been abandoned and of those, how many were because of evidence versus just having the people who believe it die off?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with OP. For the first time in history since the Scientific Method became the standard, the scientific consensus was challenged by the minority and defended via litigation instead of science. The orthodoxy is glaringly obvious now, if it wasn't before.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:50:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree with OP. For the first time in history since the Scientific Method became the standard, the scientific consensus was challenged by the minority and defended via litigation instead of science. The orthodoxy is glaringly obvious now, if it wasn't before.

Hi Garret

What are you referring to? I am not sure I know about this case.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:12:59 AM, Floid wrote:

The scientific method isn't a belief it is a process by which theories can be evaluated based on empirical evidence. You might say holding that the scientific method is preferable to other methods of evaluating theories (making stuff up, comparison with ancient texts, etc) is a belief but even that is a stretch because it can be demonstrated that the scientific method works better than the alternatives... so no belief is necessary.

Yes. I was mistaken to call it a belief. Will you agree beliefs inform it tho, as it does any other process ?


I don't think you understand the process by which scientist at that level operate. There may be multiple competing theories to explain a phenomenon. Dedicating oneself to trying to develop and prove out on of those theories may take years or even decades of a scientist's time. So before they dedicate themselves to that work they have to "prescreen" to decide where they will focus their attention. Some scientists have historically "prescreened" based on the theory they find as "beautiful". But no scientist would say one theory was correct over another based on "beauty", it simple a criteria they may use to decide where they will focus their efforts.

Thanks for the info. But scientists can and do pick their prefferred theories despitetge evidence. It takes time for some to accept it, some may never. I suppose Galileo, Semmelweis, and now Halton Arp faced the same predicament.



Consensus is reached because of overwhelming evidence. There is an overwhelming consensus that the Earth is roughly spherical. Is that orthodoxy? If so then all you have really accomplished is making the definition of orthodoxy so broad that it loses meaning.

Not always. You are only using an clearly verified theory as an analogy. You aren't using popular theories like the BB, evolution or relativity. That said, do you think 'eveidence' for an accepted theory can be a misinterpretation ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 3:35:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:50:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree with OP. For the first time in history since the Scientific Method became the standard, the scientific consensus was challenged by the minority and defended via litigation instead of science. The orthodoxy is glaringly obvious now, if it wasn't before.

Hi Garret

What are you referring to? I am not sure I know about this case.

I'm referring to the court case where a high school tried to promote Intelligent Design and was prevented from doing so.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 11:23:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
Thanks for the info. But scientists can and do pick their prefferred theories despitetge evidence. It takes time for some to accept it, some may never. I suppose Galileo, Semmelweis, and now Halton Arp faced the same predicament.

Individual scientists, yes. But not the consensus of a scientific group or community at large. This is why we have 12 juries, and not 1. We understand that individual beliefs and preferences are subjective, but a group, a society, is not contingent upon any single individual, and is therefore objective.

Not always. You are only using an clearly verified theory as an analogy. You aren't using popular theories like the BB, evolution or relativity. That said, do you think 'eveidence' for an accepted theory can be a misinterpretation ?

Im fairly certain that physicists agree that relativity best explains the current evidence we have. And thats kind of the point. They are popular because they are supported by the evidence. Its not like the theory became popular because the scientists who were backing it up were lobbying for it and giving out gifts and money.

But yes, I think that "Evidence" can be misinterpreted, but only if you have a preconceived bias or assumption about the current world.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:35:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:50:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree with OP. For the first time in history since the Scientific Method became the standard, the scientific consensus was challenged by the minority and defended via litigation instead of science. The orthodoxy is glaringly obvious now, if it wasn't before.

Hi Garret

What are you referring to? I am not sure I know about this case.

I'm referring to the court case where a high school tried to promote Intelligent Design and was prevented from doing so.

Well, no, this was because the intelligent design movement did not use the scientific method to begin with.

If the ID movement had tried submitting papers to the scientific community, then the community woudlve answered with science. But the ID movement circumvented the process of science and the scientific method. Instead, they tried to teach the children and let the children choose and decide for themselves, and sorry, but thats not how the scientific method works.

It would be the equivalent of letting hospital patients decide what the surgery procedure should be.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 6:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:35:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:50:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I agree with OP. For the first time in history since the Scientific Method became the standard, the scientific consensus was challenged by the minority and defended via litigation instead of science. The orthodoxy is glaringly obvious now, if it wasn't before.

Hi Garret

What are you referring to? I am not sure I know about this case.

I'm referring to the court case where a high school tried to promote Intelligent Design and was prevented from doing so.

Oh, OK thanks. Makes sense though as it is unconstitutional and the original ruling was based on science.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 2:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:21:13 PM, tkubok wrote:

Individual scientists, yes. But not the consensus of a scientific group or community at large. This is why we have 12 juries, and not 1. We understand that individual beliefs and preferences are subjective, but a group, a society, is not contingent upon any single individual, and is therefore objective.

A group can be subjective.



Im fairly certain that physicists agree that relativity best explains the current evidence we have. And thats kind of the point. They are popular because they are supported by the evidence. Its not like the theory became popular because the scientists who were backing it up were lobbying for it and giving out gifts and money.

But yes, I think that "Evidence" can be misinterpreted, but only if you have a preconceived bias or assumption about the current world.

Do you agree that all scientists start out with a preconcieved bias or notion about the world ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 3:02:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:29:12 PM, tkubok wrote:

Well, no, this was because the intelligent design movement did not use the scientific method to begin with.

They did and still do.

They made an observation (Intelligent agents design CSI)
They formed a hypothesis (That intelligence was necessary for life)
Thet tested it (by coopting already known facts (tested for) and demonstrating they had CSI to begin with)
They made a conclusion (Life shows CSI and hence must have been designed).


If the ID movement had tried submitting papers to the scientific community, then the community woudlve answered with science. But the ID movement circumvented the process of science and the scientific method. Instead, they tried to teach the children and let the children choose and decide for themselves, and sorry, but thats not how the scientific method works.

It would be the equivalent of letting hospital patients decide what the surgery procedure should be.

The outcry that visited the pro-ID paper Meyer submitted to the Smithsonian institute shows they wouldn't even get a fair hearing. First there was an actual scream before they got the sense to deal with the paper, and did a poor job of it. But that's not the only aspect of science where an orthodoxy sidelines opposing views. In the case of Halton Arp, his data on nearby stars with hugely varied redshifts, were dismissed and been labelled crackpottery. Here's the thing about orthodoxies (in both science and religion): they are usually believed to be too factual to be doubted.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 3:35:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 2:47:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:21:13 PM, tkubok wrote:

Individual scientists, yes. But not the consensus of a scientific group or community at large. This is why we have 12 juries, and not 1. We understand that individual beliefs and preferences are subjective, but a group, a society, is not contingent upon any single individual, and is therefore objective.

A group can be subjective.

I agree, the creationism/ID group movement has provided ample evidence of this.



Im fairly certain that physicists agree that relativity best explains the current evidence we have. And thats kind of the point. They are popular because they are supported by the evidence. Its not like the theory became popular because the scientists who were backing it up were lobbying for it and giving out gifts and money.

But yes, I think that "Evidence" can be misinterpreted, but only if you have a preconceived bias or assumption about the current world.

Do you agree that all scientists start out with a preconcieved bias or notion about the world ?

Yes, I agree, but science itself doesn't. It just filters out what is wrong/unscientific/demonstrably false (like ID, creationism)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 3:40:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 3:02:03 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:29:12 PM, tkubok wrote:

Well, no, this was because the intelligent design movement did not use the scientific method to begin with.

They did and still do.

They made an observation (Intelligent agents design CSI)
They formed a hypothesis (That intelligence was necessary for life)

Thet tested it (by coopting already known facts (tested for) and demonstrating they had CSI to begin with)

You have failed at demonstrating it.

They made a conclusion (Life shows CSI and hence must have been designed).


If the ID movement had tried submitting papers to the scientific community, then the community woudlve answered with science. But the ID movement circumvented the process of science and the scientific method. Instead, they tried to teach the children and let the children choose and decide for themselves, and sorry, but thats not how the scientific method works.

It would be the equivalent of letting hospital patients decide what the surgery procedure should be.

The outcry that visited the pro-ID paper Meyer submitted to the Smithsonian institute shows they wouldn't even get a fair hearing. First there was an actual scream before they got the sense to deal with the paper, and did a poor job of it. But that's not the only aspect of science where an orthodoxy sidelines opposing views. In the case of Halton Arp, his data on nearby stars with hugely varied redshifts, were dismissed and been labelled crackpottery. Here's the thing about orthodoxies (in both science and religion): they are usually believed to be too factual to be doubted.

You need to actually research your stories:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you go around the houses to bypass the standard peer-review process then what did you expect was going to happen. Not to mention the paper itself does not hold up upon peer review anyway. No original research and furthermore, unscientific.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 5:20:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

Of course orthodoxy prevails in science; Thomas Kuhn explicated it profoundly in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The orthodoxy is the current "paradigm", and it"s the context in which science operates. Within the paradigm, observations are made with a purpose, they are selected according to the theory to be tested, the observations are interpreted according to experience and expectation, and then they are assembled, regimented, and reported in accordance with the theory being advanced or refuted.

That"s why a scientific field of inquiry is called a "discipline", it requires a disciplined manner of thinking to be considered valid, which is to say, it must be according to the orthodoxy of the discipline. The paradigm is a conceptual framework, a way of looking at the world, which excludes rival conceptions. In science, the paradigm legislates, it is a representation of the totality of background information, of laws and theories which are taught to aspiring scientist as true, and which the scientist has to accept if he is to be accepted into the scientific community.

Einstein said "It"s the theory that allows us to see the facts", and it"s the paradigm that determines what theories are acceptable. Science is broadly successful in presenting a worldview that is coherence and consistent by relying on a consensus about what is relevant, and in the process, quite explicitly repressing alternative views while fitting the facts to the theories of the orthodoxy. Science attempts not only to understand nature, but to control nature, and its tendency for control is clearly directed inwardly as a matter of operational efficiency and "discipline".

The scientific paradigm is clearly an orthodoxy that is structured, autonomous, self-validating, and regulating.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 12:32:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 11:23:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:12:59 AM, Floid wrote:

The scientific method isn't a belief it is a process by which theories can be evaluated based on empirical evidence. You might say holding that the scientific method is preferable to other methods of evaluating theories (making stuff up, comparison with ancient texts, etc) is a belief but even that is a stretch because it can be demonstrated that the scientific method works better than the alternatives... so no belief is necessary.

Yes. I was mistaken to call it a belief. Will you agree beliefs inform it tho, as it does any other process ?

It depends on how broad you want to make your definition of belief. Does it require belief to trust our senses? Sure, philosophically you can make the argument we can't prove anything beyond "I think therefore I am.". But if you make the definition of belief that broad then you have made the word belief useless not demonstrated anything about science.


I don't think you understand the process by which scientist at that level operate. There may be multiple competing theories to explain a phenomenon. Dedicating oneself to trying to develop and prove out on of those theories may take years or even decades of a scientist's time. So before they dedicate themselves to that work they have to "prescreen" to decide where they will focus their attention. Some scientists have historically "prescreened" based on the theory they find as "beautiful". But no scientist would say one theory was correct over another based on "beauty", it simple a criteria they may use to decide where they will focus their efforts.

Thanks for the info. But scientists can and do pick their prefferred theories despitetge evidence. It takes time for some to accept it, some may never. I suppose Galileo, Semmelweis, and now Halton Arp faced the same predicament.

You still missed the point. There is a difference between a developed theory and a theory being developed.

If a scientist wishes to develop a new theory, explain a new phenomenon, expand a theory, etc they might do so despite evidence. But if there were overwhelming evidence that what they were about to work on is wrong then why would they start working on it to begin with?

What science does not do is say a theory is correct despite evidence. Once a theory is developed and the range of evidence we have is unable to prove it incorrect while that theory also makes testable predictions then science says it is correct... at least until a better theory comes along or evidence proves it wrong.

Consensus is reached because of overwhelming evidence. There is an overwhelming consensus that the Earth is roughly spherical. Is that orthodoxy? If so then all you have really accomplished is making the definition of orthodoxy so broad that it loses meaning.

Not always. You are only using an clearly verified theory as an analogy. You aren't using popular theories like the BB, evolution or relativity. That said, do you think 'eveidence' for an accepted theory can be a misinterpretation ?

Evolution predicted what genetics would find. Evolution explains why we find diversity between isolated populations yet the "closeness" of those populations determines the amount of variation. Evolution has predicted what types of fossils we would expect to find in different areas and on and on. Evolution is supported by the fossil record, genetics, the phases of the embyro, demonstrated in the lab through experiments like the Lenski experiments, and on and on.

Relativity has been proven through dozens of unique experiments. Its effects are incorporated into satellite design/software to keep their clocks accurate. Without an understanding of relativity GPS would not work. And on and on.

Scientific illiteracy doesn't make an effective basis for argument.

Is it possible that scientific evidence is misinterpreted? Sure it is. That is why we continually test theories and compare them to new evidence as it becomes available. You could even say that much of classic mechanics was a misinterpretation of evidence. Since we only have experience at a very small range of relative velocities, classic mechanics never thought to look to what would happen at large relative velocities. It appeared that classic mechanics worked until Einstein came along and said as we approach the speed of light we would notice larger and larger errors in classic mechanics. Thus the birth of relativity.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 4:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 5:20:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/12/2014 11:20:17 PM, Iredia wrote:
I do. Why ?

Let's start with definitions. Orthodoxy is a belief or opinion conformed to especially within (but not limited to) religious contexts.

In that sense, orthodoxy has a role to play in every aspect of a society. But usually, the term is used in a negative sense.

The scientific method is the belief which informs modern science and is crucial to it. But going about it is a different thing all together. When I see a Murray Gellman or some other physicist mentioning 'beauty' as a criteria for choosing theories I'm miffed. Because accurate theories don't have to be beautiful, and beauty is subjective whilst science aims at objectivity.

More importantly, when I consider how consensus is emphasized in science (with phrases like 'many scientists believe', 'overwhelming evidence' etc) I wonder why one shouldn't say of science that it has its orthodoxy_in every negative sense of the word.

Of course orthodoxy prevails in science; Thomas Kuhn explicated it profoundly in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The orthodoxy is the current "paradigm", and it"s the context in which science operates. Within the paradigm, observations are made with a purpose, they are selected according to the theory to be tested, the observations are interpreted according to experience and expectation, and then they are assembled, regimented, and reported in accordance with the theory being advanced or refuted.

That"s why a scientific field of inquiry is called a "discipline", it requires a disciplined manner of thinking to be considered valid, which is to say, it must be according to the orthodoxy of the discipline. The paradigm is a conceptual framework, a way of looking at the world, which excludes rival conceptions. In science, the paradigm legislates, it is a representation of the totality of background information, of laws and theories which are taught to aspiring scientist as true, and which the scientist has to accept if he is to be accepted into the scientific community.

Einstein said "It"s the theory that allows us to see the facts", and it"s the paradigm that determines what theories are acceptable. Science is broadly successful in presenting a worldview that is coherence and consistent by relying on a consensus about what is relevant, and in the process, quite explicitly repressing alternative views while fitting the facts to the theories of the orthodoxy. Science attempts not only to understand nature, but to control nature, and its tendency for control is clearly directed inwardly as a matter of operational efficiency and "discipline".

The scientific paradigm is clearly an orthodoxy that is structured, autonomous, self-validating, and regulating.

I feel you are slightly misrepresenting Kuhn's full view. In the long run paradigm shifts occur when evidence has built up that cannot be explained by the current convention. Einstein himself is famous for bringing in four paradigm shifts in 1905: the atom, relativity, quantisation and mass energy conservation.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 3:13:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 4:13:20 PM, chui wrote:

I feel you are slightly misrepresenting Kuhn's full view. In the long run paradigm shifts occur when evidence has built up that cannot be explained by the current convention. Einstein himself is famous for bringing in four paradigm shifts in 1905: the atom, relativity, quantisation and mass energy conservation.

You may want to consider that even evidence doesn't do the shift. The phenomena you state remained as 'puzzles' which never falsified the prevailing paradigm till it was convenient to do so. Evidence which counter-fact a prevailing paradigm are either ignored (as puzzles or lies) or explained away.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 4:12:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 12:32:37 PM, Floid wrote:

It depends on how broad you want to make your definition of belief. Does it require belief to trust our senses? Sure, philosophically you can make the argument we can't prove anything beyond "I think therefore I am.". But if you make the definition of belief that broad then you have made the word belief useless not demonstrated anything about science.

Since when did being 'that broad' mean useless ? Now to the point, it's true the scientific method is a process, but it is as well a belief; a belief that informs us, that the method is the best way to know how the world works.



I don't think you understand the process by which scientist at that level operate. There may be multiple competing theories to explain a phenomenon. Dedicating oneself to trying to develop and prove out on of those theories may take years or even decades of a scientist's time. So before they dedicate themselves to that work they have to "prescreen" to decide where they will focus their attention. Some scientists have historically "prescreened" based on the theory they find as "beautiful". But no scientist would say one theory was correct over another based on "beauty", it simple a criteria they may use to decide where they will focus their efforts.

Yet there's the history of the cosmological constant.

You lost me here:

"But no scientist would say . . ."

If it was 'no true . . .' I'd understand. If it was 'few scientists' I'd agree more. If it was 'not all scientists' we'd be in perfect agreement. For you to say 'no scientist' I can only assume one thing based on my experience reading and debating this. You have an idealized notion of science.

I'm hitting a snag trying to show you that, in a negative sense, orthodoxy exists in science. Maybe it will help if I said this doesn't mean science is bad, it's to show that it has flaws, in more ways than you (and scientists like you) will admit.

I'll even pretend I believe evolution and the BB. But when despite the evidence, scientists once doubted that unwashed hands could spread fatal diseases (as Semmelweis taught), then you must understand this: that when you are trapped in a web, a bias of orthodox thinking, you typically tend to think the evidence revolves around you.


You still missed the point. There is a difference between a developed theory and a theory being developed.

If a scientist wishes to develop a new theory, explain a new phenomenon, expand a theory, etc they might do so despite evidence. But if there were overwhelming evidence that what they were about to work on is wrong then why would they start working on it to begin with?

Poor Galileo, I can imagine that the 'Ptolemists' said things along these lines. In any case to answer your question, because they don't agree it is overwhelming, 'overwhelming evidence' quite literally poofs when its central assumptions fail. I understand a 'rule of thumb' has its snags on meeting a nuance but Occam's razor still has its place; the more ad-hoc explanations a theory needs to be shown to 'have overwhelming evidence', the more suspicious one should be of it.


What science does not do is say a theory is correct despite evidence. Once a theory is developed and the range of evidence we have is unable to prove it incorrect while that theory also makes testable predictions then science says it is correct... at least until a better theory comes along or evidence proves it wrong.

That it does. Planck, Einstein, even Newton etc did it. Evidence is a data that is used to support a theory (or hypothesis). It can be interpreted in other ways. Science typically tries to let the facts dictate the theory; but the reverse can occur and that is where 'evidence' misleads.


Consensus is reached because of overwhelming evidence. There is an overwhelming consensus that the Earth is roughly spherical. Is that orthodoxy? If so then all you have really accomplished is making the definition of orthodoxy so broad that it loses meaning.

The same for consensus here. If you believe 'overwhelming consensus' must be observed facts then it loses meaning. What next will you say 'there is overwhelming consensus humans die' ?!


Scientific illiteracy doesn't make an effective basis for argument.

Indeed. I can imagine some simple farmer being told this if he challenged the idea of spontaenous generation. Too bad, Pasteur ultimately failed in his quest; spontaenous generation is back with a bang_and she is abiogenesis.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:27:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 2:47:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:21:13 PM, tkubok wrote:

Individual scientists, yes. But not the consensus of a scientific group or community at large. This is why we have 12 juries, and not 1. We understand that individual beliefs and preferences are subjective, but a group, a society, is not contingent upon any single individual, and is therefore objective.

A group can be subjective.

Only if a single person in the group is making a decision. But if it is a group choice, then by definition, it cannot be subjective.




Im fairly certain that physicists agree that relativity best explains the current evidence we have. And thats kind of the point. They are popular because they are supported by the evidence. Its not like the theory became popular because the scientists who were backing it up were lobbying for it and giving out gifts and money.

But yes, I think that "Evidence" can be misinterpreted, but only if you have a preconceived bias or assumption about the current world.

Do you agree that all scientists start out with a preconcieved bias or notion about the world ?

Sure, and some biases and notions are valid. We both have a preconcieved bias and notion about, for example, the fact that the world was not created 5 minutes ago. And we have this bias and notion, because we understand pragmatism, the nature of evidence, knowledge, empiricism, etc.

Evolution, the Big bang theory, these things are based on the preconcieved bias of nature, of methodological naturalism, and so is science in general. This bias is justified and valid.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:56:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 3:02:03 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:29:12 PM, tkubok wrote:

Well, no, this was because the intelligent design movement did not use the scientific method to begin with.

They did and still do.

They made an observation (Intelligent agents design CSI)
They formed a hypothesis (That intelligence was necessary for life)
Thet tested it (by coopting already known facts (tested for) and demonstrating they had CSI to begin with)
They made a conclusion (Life shows CSI and hence must have been designed).

Their conclusion failed.

And yet they do not accept it. They do not accept that their conclusion failed, and keep bringing the hypothesis up as if there were still something left, as if they could still make it valid.

Irreducible complexity is a perfect example of how this failed. They brought up the eye as the pinnacle of an example of IC, and yet it failed, we had a good explanation of how the eye formed. They brought up the Bacterial flagellum, as an example, and that failed.

The more they failed, the more we realized that this was only an argument from ignorance.

I dont even know how you could falsify CSI.


If the ID movement had tried submitting papers to the scientific community, then the community woudlve answered with science. But the ID movement circumvented the process of science and the scientific method. Instead, they tried to teach the children and let the children choose and decide for themselves, and sorry, but thats not how the scientific method works.

It would be the equivalent of letting hospital patients decide what the surgery procedure should be.

The outcry that visited the pro-ID paper Meyer submitted to the Smithsonian institute shows they wouldn't even get a fair hearing. First there was an actual scream before they got the sense to deal with the paper, and did a poor job of it. But that's not the only aspect of science where an orthodoxy sidelines opposing views. In the case of Halton Arp, his data on nearby stars with hugely varied redshifts, were dismissed and been labelled crackpottery. Here's the thing about orthodoxies (in both science and religion): they are usually believed to be too factual to be doubted.

Its not like they took one look at the title and dismissed it, I dont think you couldve, since the title doesnt necessarily indicate ID in any way. Its after they read the article, that they were up in arms, and rightly so. If your argument was that they were screaming before they read the paper, then I would agree with you, that this orthodoxy bias is a problem, but that wasnt the case.

Everything points to the case that they did get a fair hearing. Do you honestly think that they figured out that this was an ID paper, and rejected it after just reading the title? I mean, how else could a paper be rejected, except by reading the entire thing, finding problems with the paper and rejecting it?

And as for Halton Arp, no, it was the opposite, as all the evidence, accumulated by advanced telescopes that were not availeable when Arp first made his hypothesis, disproves his claims. And yet Arp kept holding on to his beliefs despite the lack of evidence.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

And thats fine, he can hold on to his beliefs, he has the freedom to do that. But the resulting failure of the evidence to support his claims, and therefore, the rejection by the scientific community, is valid, and in accordance with the scientific method.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Only if a single person in the group is making a decision. But if it is a group choice, then by definition, it cannot be subjective.

Then a group of crackpots are objective, right ?


Sure, and some biases and notions are valid. We both have a preconcieved bias and notion about, for example, the fact that the world was not created 5 minutes ago. And we have this bias and notion, because we understand pragmatism, the nature of evidence, knowledge, empiricism, etc.

Evolution, the Big bang theory, these things are based on the preconcieved bias of nature, of methodological naturalism, and so is science in general. This bias is justified and valid.

Can there be exceptions to this bias ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:56:22 AM, tkubok wrote:

Their conclusion failed.

And yet they do not accept it. They do not accept that their conclusion failed, and keep bringing the hypothesis up as if there were still something left, as if they could still make it valid.

Irreducible complexity is a perfect example of how this failed. They brought up the eye as the pinnacle of an example of IC, and yet it failed, we had a good explanation of how the eye formed. They brought up the Bacterial flagellum, as an example, and that failed.

The more they failed, the more we realized that this was only an argument from ignorance.

I dont even know how you could falsify CSI.

Let's leave this for medic006's thread on evolution. You haven't replied my responses to you there.


Its not like they took one look at the title and dismissed it, I dont think you couldve, since the title doesnt necessarily indicate ID in any way. Its after they read the article, that they were up in arms, and rightly so. If your argument was that they were screaming before they read the paper, then I would agree with you, that this orthodoxy bias is a problem, but that wasnt the case.

Everything points to the case that they did get a fair hearing. Do you honestly think that they figured out that this was an ID paper, and rejected it after just reading the title? I mean, how else could a paper be rejected, except by reading the entire thing, finding problems with the paper and rejecting it?

And as for Halton Arp, no, it was the opposite, as all the evidence, accumulated by advanced telescopes that were not availeable when Arp first made his hypothesis, disproves his claims. And yet Arp kept holding on to his beliefs despite the lack of evidence.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

And thats fine, he can hold on to his beliefs, he has the freedom to do that. But the resulting failure of the evidence to support his claims, and therefore, the rejection by the scientific community, is valid, and in accordance with the scientific method.

Okay. Do you think current scientists now are open to the possibility that accepted theories or laws like that of thermodynamics, gravity, Big Bang etc may be (evidenced to be) wrong ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:16:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay. Do you think current scientists now are open to the possibility that accepted theories or laws like that of thermodynamics, gravity, Big Bang etc may be (evidenced to be) wrong ?

Yes, but it's more than likely said theories are just incomplete descriptions of reality and will just be replaced with a more complete one. Since the existing theories have already been thoroughly tested across it's limits.

They already know every single theory we have is incomplete, which is why they're looking for the TOE.

Take gravitational theory

Newton's Laws of Gravity
Superceded by
Einstein's theory of relativity
Likely to be superseded by
Quantum Gravity

It's already known relativity breaks down at the quantum level, hence that's where the frontier of research is.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 2:17:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 12:24:05 PM, Iredia wrote:

Only if a single person in the group is making a decision. But if it is a group choice, then by definition, it cannot be subjective.

Then a group of crackpots are objective, right ?

Again, it depends, if a single person in the group is making the decision, its no longer objective.

I suggest you read up on what "subjective" means, in the dictionary.

But since im nice, here:

sub"jec"tive
[suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.


Sure, and some biases and notions are valid. We both have a preconcieved bias and notion about, for example, the fact that the world was not created 5 minutes ago. And we have this bias and notion, because we understand pragmatism, the nature of evidence, knowledge, empiricism, etc.

Evolution, the Big bang theory, these things are based on the preconcieved bias of nature, of methodological naturalism, and so is science in general. This bias is justified and valid.

Can there be exceptions to this bias ?

Yes, there is.