Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
A new term, actually…two words…
Catechism-Science (n.)
Bearing in mind that experience and experiment come from a common Latin root, catechism-science is anything toiling away under the label of “science” that exists entirely outside of that. Its persuasive strength comes from being repeated over and over, verbatim, by people who call themselves “scientists” but who do not do science.
It’s important to separate this out from the real stuff, for a number of reasons. One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning, and while deductive reasoning is most persuasive when it is carried out properly, people lose track of how easy it is to do it improperly. It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed, and 2) each item within that list was eliminated conservatively. If the producer of the conclusion succeeds at #1 and fails at #2, the final conclusion is only as strong as the weakest elimination. If he fails at #1 then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Or, to be more precise about it and maybe a bit more tactful, it is a (questionably) valid exercise of what might be real scientific thinking, within an arbitrarily restricted scope of possibilities, thus rendered at least partially useless.
This is done all the time nowadays. Super Bowl Sunday is an awful day for spousal abuse; this-kid or that-kid has Autism; this-or-that climate-change model is 95% certain.
This is not the same as anti-science, which works toward a desired conclusion by paring information away that doesn’t fit. Although there is certainly a relationship between catechism-science and anti-science, in the sense that they both start with the desired findings already identified. They both contain an awful lot of passive-voice statements, like “these symptoms are thought to be classic traits of Asperger’s” or “the science is settled on global warming.” Statements formed within these sciences, involve a consistent situation in which the speaker is pointing to someone else, and nobody really knows much of anything except how to repeat things that someone else has said.
Therefore — if you ask fairly innocuous questions, questions you ought to be able to ask of real science, such as, “how do we know that?” or “just how sure are we of that?” you get back a whole lot of nothing, veiled threats hinting toward your imminent ostracism if you don’t straighten up and fly right, or pure nonsense. “Oh, very sure! Very, very, very sure! Extreeeeemely sure!”
If you let it play out, now and then you find out that’s actually correct. About as often as a roll of the dice comes up double-sixes, and for the same reason. In other words, it might occasionally bump into real and verified truth, but isn’t real science.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One should never equate science with truth. Reading blogs, I came across a preview of a science documentary coming out in April. The title is “The Principle” and it’s preview is showing on YouTube. It is about 2 minutes long. On the same YouTube page is a longer piece by Dr. Robert Sungenis that runs almost 2 3/4 hrs but is well worth the read as several prominent scientists are covered including Hubble and Hawking. Scientists are more than willing to evade the truth if it doesn’t fit their worldview.
- indyjonesouthere | 01/10/2014 @ 13:53mkfreeberg: Bearing in mind that experience and experiment come from a common Latin root, catechism-science is anything toiling away under the label of “science” that exists entirely outside of that.
As all science depends on matching theory and observation, ‘catechism-science’ isn’t science at all. You gave a few examples. The first was a falsely reported story that was amplified by the media. The second is based on weak correlation that became accepted fact by many. The third doesn’t really fit as updating climate models doesn’t mean the basic theory has been discarded. Indeed, they’re updated based on new observations and methodologies. Only the first doesn’t involve observation. So, by ‘catechism-science’, do you mean rumors that quote supposed scientific findings?
mkfreeberg: One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning
Sure. The scientific method is hypothetico-deductive.
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed, and 2) each item within that list was eliminated conservatively. If the producer of the conclusion succeeds at #1 and fails at #2, the final conclusion is only as strong as the weakest elimination.
Sort of. It’s impossible to account for every possible explanation. If we had to account for every possible explanation, then science could never progress. That’s the reason the scientific method was devised; it allows us to reach reasonable conclusions even though most of the universe is unknown. That’s also why scientific conclusions are always considered tentative, no matter how strongly supported.
mkfreeberg: Therefore — if you ask fairly innocuous questions, questions you ought to be able to ask of real science, such as, “how do we know that?” or “just how sure are we of that?”
Those are very good questions. Never heard you ask those questions before in our discussions. Perhaps you have delved into those matters elsewhere.
- Zachriel | 01/10/2014 @ 19:04Right, y’all don’t want me noticing it.
We’ve got a lot of stuff masquerading under the label of “science” that doesn’t rely on anybody doing science, but rather, repeating a lot of stuff over & over again.
But y’all don’t want anyone noticing that.
- mkfreeberg | 01/10/2014 @ 22:13mkfreeberg: We’ve got a lot of stuff masquerading under the label of “science” that doesn’t rely on anybody doing science, but rather, repeating a lot of stuff over & over again.
We are in agreement. Citing scientific studies doesn’t constitute “doing science”. However, it may provide support for an argument.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 08:05We are in agreement. Citing scientific studies doesn’t constitute “doing science”. However, it may provide support for an argument.
We’re in agreement on the last statement as well.
However, we need to look at what is meant by “support.” Some people, faced with a citation that contradicts the viewpoint they’re trying to present, might 1) ignore it, 2) believe it immediately without looking into it further, or 3) take the trouble to track down the details so that the two questions above can be answered: “how do we know that?” and “just how sure are we of that?”
With catechism-science, one eventually finds out there’s no actual source because nobody did much, or any, genuine work. The spousal-abuse on Super Bowl Sunday is a pretty good example of this.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 08:17mkfreeberg: We’re in agreement on the last statement as well.
Thank you.
mkfreeberg: However, we need to look at what is meant by “support.” Some people, faced with a citation that contradicts the viewpoint they’re trying to present, might 1) ignore it, 2) believe it immediately without looking into it further, or 3) take the trouble to track down the details so that the two questions above can be answered: “how do we know that?” and “just how sure are we of that?”
Those are very good questions. Never heard you ask those questions before in our discussions. Perhaps you have delved into those matters elsewhere.
mkfreeberg: With catechism-science, one eventually finds out there’s no actual source because nobody did much, or any, genuine work.
That’s probably not uncommon in society. The autism connection to vaccine is one such example. One bogus study was amplified through media and left-wing public concern groups, and the erroneous results have been trumpeted long after the study was debunked and retracted.
That’s the reason why we try to provide valid citations to support any empirical claims we might make. That way people can refer to the actual source, determine if the data and methods are appropriate, if it represents a consensus within the field, whether it has been superseded by new research, or retracted altogether. For instance, the Earth is roughly 252,000 stadia in circumference. See Eratosthenes c. 220 BCE.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 08:56Those are very good questions. Never heard you ask those questions before in our discussions. Perhaps you have delved into those matters elsewhere.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 09:30That process-guide that purports to define “validity,” does nothing to resolve the questions.
mkfreeberg: That process-guide that purports to define “validity,” does nothing to resolve the questions.
No. It’s for evaluating an appeal to authority to avoid ‘catechism-science,’ where “one eventually finds out there’s no actual source because nobody did much, or any, genuine work.”
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 09:33The process-guide does nothing to resolve that either.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 09:48mkfreeberg: The process-guide does nothing to resolve that either.
The problem of ‘catechism-science’ is to avoid an appeal to “science says”, when no such authoritative source exists.
If someone points to an expert in history concerning a point about science, the historian may be correct, but the appeal is faulty. If someone points to an expert who represents a fringe within the field, the expert may be correct, but the appeal is faulty. If someone says everybody knows, they may be right, but the appeal is faulty. A valid appeal to authority avoids this problem. The source is the authority speaking to a consensus within their field of study.
Another way to avoid the problem of no actual source is to cite a peer reviewed scientific study, in which case the citation is generally to the evidence, not an appeal to authority.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 10:00None of those techniques will do anything about the problem of scientists just repeating stuff other scientists have said, without anyone doing any actual work. Neither do the “valid appeal” bullets.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 10:03mkfreeberg: None of those techniques will do anything about the problem of scientists just repeating stuff other scientists have said, without anyone doing any actual work.
Scientists don’t usually get research published “just repeating stuff other scientists have said”. You might want to pick up a scientific journal once in a while.
The journal Nature has some interesting articles this month: Diversity of ageing across the tree of life, Elephant shark genome provides unique insights into gnathostome evolution, Patterning and growth control by membrane-tethered Wingless, The rarity of dust in metal-poor galaxies, Face-to-face transfer of wafer-scale graphene films, A metal-free organic–inorganic aqueous flow battery, The effects of genetic variation on gene expression dynamics during development. If you look at more specialized journals, such as the journal Genetics, you will find a plethora of new scientific research.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 10:14Scientists don’t usually get research published “just repeating stuff other scientists have said”. You might want to pick up a scientific journal once in a while.
Science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning, and while deductive reasoning is most persuasive when it is carried out properly, people lose track of how easy it is to do it improperly. It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed, and 2) each item within that list was eliminated conservatively.
Maybe the problem is that we have too many millennial-scientists. Their research must be wonderful and great, because they showed up, and worked really, really, really hard on it.
At any rate. If the research is worth anything at all, it ought to be able to at least partially address the two questions above: How do we know that, and how sure are we. A lot of these appeals-to-authority, “valid” under the definition listed above, leave that part out. Which either makes strong ordinary science into catechism-science, or helps to proliferate that science that never was anything more than catechism-science in the first place.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 10:23mkfreeberg: Science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning, …
Yes, it’s intrinsic to hypothetico-deduction.
mkfreeberg: and while deductive reasoning is most persuasive when it is carried out properly, people lose track of how easy it is to do it improperly. It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed, and 2) each item within that list was eliminated conservatively.
Sorry, that is simply incorrect. We responded to this already. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation. If we had to account for every possible explanation, then science could never progress. Do you understand how hypothetico-deduction works?
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 10:38I already responded to y’all’s response before y’all even made it.
If any of the possibilities had been left out of consideration, then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Or, to be more precise about it and maybe a bit more tactful, it is a (questionably) valid exercise of what might be real scientific thinking, within an arbitrarily restricted scope of possibilities, thus rendered at least partially useless.
I see a bright light. I can “scientifically” deduce it is a UFO from another planet…if I simply fail to take into account very real possibilities. Heck, if I prematurely eliminate the right ones from consideration, I can “scientifically” arrive at just about any conclusion I want, about any question before me.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 10:42mkfreeberg: If any of the possibilities had been left out of consideration, then the whole thing is just a waste of time.
What about it’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation do you not understand?
mkfreeberg: If any of the possibilities had been left out of consideration, then the whole thing is just a waste of time.
Then science could never progress, because we can never know every possible explanation. It’s hypothetico-deduction, not simple deduction.
mkfreeberg: I can “scientifically” deduce it is a UFO from another planet…if I simply fail to take into account very real possibilities.
No. Science is not a matter of simple deduction. You have to propose a testable hypothesis, then test it.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 10:50But if you’re only eliminating possibilities within an arbitrarily selected and incomplete set of possibilities, the exercise overall isn’t really scientific. Even though the actual elimination may be.
In my example, by failing to consider the bright light might be an aircraft, I have “scientifically proven” it’s a vehicle from another planet. Obviously that doesn’t really work.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 10:52mkfreeberg: But if you’re only eliminating possibilities within an arbitrarily selected and incomplete set of possibilities, the exercise overall isn’t really scientific.
You haven’t addressed the point. You should certainly consider any possibilities within your knowledge, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation. If that was the requirement, science wouldn’t be possible.
mkfreeberg: In my example, by failing to consider the bright light might be an aircraft, I have “scientifically proven” it’s a vehicle from another planet.
You don’t “prove” scientific claims, you provide support for or against them.
You failed to propose a testable hypothesis, then test it. Science is not just deduction.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 11:11ou haven’t addressed the point. You should certainly consider any possibilities within your knowledge, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation.
Some points are not worth addressing. “It’s too hard” == “We don’t need to do that” is an equivalence that cannot be taken seriously, therefore it doesn’t rise to the level of necessary rebuttal.
Comes off looking like an excuse my kid might give me for not doing his homework. Think we’re back to that “millennial scientist” problem: The research must be right, because the kid worked really, really, REALLY hard at it, and all that necessary stuff he didn’t feel like doing, is just impossible anyway.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 11:24mkfreeberg: Some points are not worth addressing.
The point is the very heart of the scientific method, which allows us to reach reasonable conclusions with limited knowledge.
mkfreeberg: “It’s too hard” == “We don’t need to do that” is an equivalence that cannot be taken seriously, therefore it doesn’t rise to the level of necessary rebuttal.
Bohr proposed a theory of the atom without the benefit of quantum mechanics; consequently, his model is flawed. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric theory without the benefit of a theory of gravity; consequently, his model is flawed. Lavoisier proposed the principle of the conservation of matter without knowledge of radioactivity; consequently, his model was flawed. Newton proposed a theory of mechanics without the benefit of relativity; consequently, his model is flawed. And yet, these were each huge strides forward.
In science, everything is ‘wrong’, nothing is known with certainty. But it’s the relativity of wrong, the very heart of the scientific method.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 12:21http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
And, if Eratosthenes had preliminarily eliminated the possibility of a round Earth, his experiment would have “proven” that the sun is 4,000 miles away from a flat one. Conclusively.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 12:23mkfreeberg: Conclusively.
You keep using the word “conclusively” incorrectly. Try to substitute the phrase, “would have supported the hypothesis”.
mkfreeberg: And, if Eratosthenes had preliminarily eliminated the possibility of a round Earth, his experiment would have “proven” that the sun is 4,000 miles away from a flat one.
If the evidence were consistent with a flat or round Earth, then *both* hypotheses would be supported. However, it had already been determined that the Sun was far enough away that its rays were very close to parallel upon the Earth. See Aristarchus of Samos c. 240 BCE.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 12:41You should certainly consider any possibilities within your knowledge, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation…
However, it had already been determined…
Which is it? Looks like y’all need to go off-line and have a meeting about which one of y’all needs to backpedal.
You are incorrect in saying my use of the word “conclusively” is incorrect. Turns out my usage was correct.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 12:47mkfreeberg: You are incorrect in saying my use of the word “conclusively” is incorrect. Turns out my usage was correct.
All scientific claims are considered to be tentative. However, some are so well established that they can be considered as fact, still allowing for the possibility of error. You are wrong, because the experiment wouldn’t have *conclusively* shown the Sun was 4000 miles away. At best, it would have supported the hypothesis. In fact, the consilience of evidence was that the Sun was very distant and the Earth was round.
Try to address the actual point. You said scientists had to eliminate all possible explanations. But, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to account for every POSSIBLE explanation. Bohr didn’t eliminate every possible explanation, nor did Copernicus or Lavoisier or Newton. They didn’t ignore what was known, but they certainly didn’t have access to the data and methods we have today. They proposed simplified models that are closer than previous models, but are nonetheless flawed.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 13:07Yes, I do understand, you’re trying to distinguish the deductive reasoning used in science from the deductive reasoning used by, well, pretty much anyone capable of using deductive reasoning. It’s not an issue of lack of understanding on my part; the issue is that y’all want to isolate science from true reasoning, and you can go down that road without me.
The point is, like any deductive reasoning, it ends up being fallacious if it eliminates possibilities that have not been logically refuted. That’s one of the sources of catechism science; conclusions that were reached hastily, without engaging true and valid reasoning.
I offered up the example of observing angles of sunbeams in wells approximately 500 miles apart, how with possible explanations eliminated prematurely, the experiment “proves” things that are not correct. In context, “conclusively” is the correct word to use. But y’all are so hung up on selling this ramshackle all-knowledge-is-relative science, y’all dinged me for improper use of the word, even though the dictionary definition shows the word was correctly used.
Yes, the statement ends up being a silly one. That’s not an word-usage problem; that’s, ya know, the whole point. That’s a problem with the reasoning y’all are trying to support, the “flexible Gumby-universe relative truth” reasoning.
Ironically, it is that reasoning that would keep science from advancing. If it’s okay to prematurely eliminate possible explanations and go down this bunny trail of what might very well be a bunch of nonsense, justifying it all with a mindset of “it’s too much work to go back and ponder whether our presumptions are correct so let’s just skip it” — then nothing can ever be validated, and without that nothing can be truly learned.
Y’all are proffering the “scientific” methods that provided “support” for phlogiston theory and young-earth creationism. That’s catechism-science; an underlying cachet offered to theories that haven’t truly been tested, delivered by way of repetitive enunciation. This kind of science doesn’t power our interior lights or make our thumb drives work, or make our cars move. All of its gifts to mankind amount to a bunch of phobias.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 13:58But y’all are so hung up on selling this ramshackle all-knowledge-is-relative science, y’all dinged me for improper use of the word, even though the dictionary definition shows the word was correctly used.
Their blind zealotry in point-missing is indeed a thing to behold. And since they can’t actually respond coherently to your point, and since I’m sure they can find a slightly different dictionary with a tiny variance in the wording of “conclusively,” expect a deluge of “we-don’t-understand-that” type semantic quibbles here in the near future.
- Severian | 01/11/2014 @ 14:21Summing up the Zachriel’s outlook here, as well as on all the other blogs they’ve been visiting since ’05 or thereabouts…
1. We look at all of life through a STRAW.
2. You’re responsible for whatever we can’t figure out.
3. WE WIN!!!
Hey…it flows more nicely and evenly than the three-step “Underpants Gnomes” business plan…
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 14:35Speaking of 2005… I notice they’re still cutting and pasting that appeal to authority checklist they cribbed from that Canadian WWII site all those years ago. Still unattributed, of course. So sad, yet so baffling, yet so pathetic.
- Severian | 01/11/2014 @ 14:52And it still has five bullets instead of six.
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 14:53mkfreeberg: Yes, I do understand, you’re trying to distinguish the deductive reasoning used in science from the deductive reasoning used by, well, pretty much anyone capable of using deductive reasoning.
It’s the same deductive reasoning. But deductive reasoning is not sufficient for science.
mkfreeberg: The point is, like any deductive reasoning, it ends up being fallacious if it eliminates possibilities that have not been logically refuted.
Or empirically refuted. But that’s not quite what you said before. You said you had to eliminate all POSSIBLE explanations, but that is IMPOSSIBLE.
mkfreeberg: I offered up the example of observing angles of sunbeams in wells approximately 500 miles apart, how with possible explanations eliminated prematurely, the experiment “proves” things that are not correct.
Logically, it could mean the Sun is close, the Earth is round, some combination, or something we haven’t considered.
mkfreeberg: If it’s okay to prematurely eliminate possible explanations …
Again, that’s not what you said. Do you wish to retract your previous position, that scientists had to impossibly eliminate all possible explanations, or are you going to defend it. At this point, you haven’t done either. Did you mean they need to eliminate all proposed alternative hypotheses? If so, that’s all you have to say, and we would be in agreement.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 15:17Y’all are going on about reading comprehension? That’s cute.
- Severian | 01/11/2014 @ 15:37Do you wish to retract your previous position, that scientists had to impossibly eliminate all possible explanations…
Not only is that outside of anything I said, but I’m hard-pressed to figure out what exactly that’s supposed to mean. “Impossibly eliminate all possible”? Does the person who typed that in, even, have the ability to say what that’s supposed to mean?
You said you had to eliminate all POSSIBLE explanations, but that is IMPOSSIBLE.
Software engineers do it all the time. It isn’t even that hard.
A member method is called and it throws an exception, nobody knows why. We take a look at the method. It tests for certain conditions, and if they are met, it throws. It calls other library functions, which are not guaranteed to not-throw. So. One of the conditions is being met, and it is explicitly throwing, or else it is calling something that throws, and the thrown exception is being passed up the stack.
If we try to diagnose the cause of the problem, considering some possibilities and not others, we run the risk of running a problematic and expensive bunny-trail. But if we do a quality job of compiling a list of possible causes, our deductive reasoning is much more effective.
This is not impossible, it’s quite easy. The consequences of failing to do it, however, can be considerable.
But that’s of little concern to the dedicated catechism-scientist — who reaches his conclusion first, before the testing, and gives it credibility by repeating it over and over, with the weight of authority. Can’t consider all the possibilities though…that’s TOO HARD! I wanted to go to Toshi Station to pick up some pooooooower converters!
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 15:55mkfreeberg: Not only is that outside of anything I said …
Sure you did. You said, “It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed”. It is impossible to list all possible causes. We gave multiple examples of scientists who proposed valid theories who did not account for every possible cause. When Newton devised his theory of gravity, he didn’t consider the possibility that gravity was due to the curvature of space; consequently, his theory is flawed. Nevertheless, Newton’s theory was less wrong than previous theories.
mkfreeberg: Software engineers do it all the time.
Of course they don’t. Otherwise, there would be no new inventions.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 19:48No, y’all said my position was “that scientists had to impossibly eliminate all possible explanations…”
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 21:26Anyway, I think by now we have a good and clear demonstration of how catechism science works. It arrives at conclusions that are not scientifically verifiable, while practicing what seems to be good science, by preliminarily eliminating possibilities that should not have been eliminated. And y’all — and others — figure that’s quite alright because, heck, it’s impossible to consider all the possibilities.
As anyone knows who’s looked out the window of a ferry boat as it’s begun moving out of the dock, it can be very apparent that the boat is stationary while the dock is moving. You could practice “good science” and conclude the dock is indeed moving — if you preliminarily eliminate the possibility that the boat might be moving. Evidently, y’all’s position is that’s fine, in fact anyone makes a reference to an attempt to consider all possibilities, y’all are going to insert words like “impossible” and “impossibly,” even while going through the motions of quoting others. Which causes confusion, in addition to betraying a flimsy and ramshackle connection to truth.
Well, considering all possibilities might be a bit difficult, but we should all try to do it nevertheless. Especially when pretending to do something called “science.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2014 @ 21:33Catechism-Science (n.)
Be careful with that on.
- CaptDMO | 01/12/2014 @ 06:05SOME folks are desperately trying to promote the term “The Cathedral” (in opposition to “the tent” I suppose) in an effort to allude to non-existant secret cabal of rich, ultra, new, white, male, right, (by any other name) conservative-libertarian conspiracy.
*sigh* that ONE.
- CaptDMO | 01/12/2014 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: No, y’all said my position was “that scientists had to impossibly eliminate all possible explanations…”
This is what you said: “It doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed”. It is impossible to exhaustively list every possible cause. This is a very simple principle. Newton didn’t consider every possible cause. He only considered causes of which he was aware, either from his memory, or from his imagination.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 06:46@Morgan,
speaking of science, you’ve proven at least one thing here — the Cuttlefish don’t have Asperger’s. I was wrong on that one. It seems they can identify the source of one of their ideas in under thirty tries if they think they’ll get a gotcha! thereby.
They’re not developmentally disabled; they’re just grossly dishonest and really, really, really bad at aruging. Score one for science.
- Severian | 01/12/2014 @ 07:22This is what you said…
That’s okay, you’ve already quoted me there. In fact, I’ve already compared your quote to what I said and found it to be inaccurate. No need to keep beating y’all’selves up about it over & over.
It is impossible to exhaustively list every possible cause.
When scientists come up with new theories to explain old observations, what they are doing is cumulatively expanding the range of possibilities to be tested.
So this turns out to be a good observation I have made. We have experience/experiment-oriented science, science that involves work, and then we have science that exists entirely outside of that, catechism-science, which does “science” simply by lending cachet to untested explanations by authoritatively repeating them over & over.
Pattern theory to be tested (inductive reasoning): These gifts to mankind from “science,” about which we have been hearing, are largely or entirely the result of the former, whereas the latter has offered mankind nothing but a bunch of hang-ups, false-certainties and phobias.
Either way, it’s clear we have been using the word “science” to describe more than one thing, including thought processes and testing methodologies that are not scientific in their character.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 08:10mkfreeberg: In fact, I’ve already compared your quote to what I said and found it to be inaccurate.
You said you had to exhaustively list the range of possible causes. Again, that’s impossible. Instead of arguing the point, you should simply adjust your comment slightly to something like: “unless 1) the range of possible known causes has been exhaustively listed”. This is crucial to understanding the scientific method. It is fundamental that if we had to exhaustively list all possible causes, science could not progress.
This is typical of your rhetoric, but it’s not all that hard to simply clarify your positions.
mkfreeberg: When scientists come up with new theories to explain old observations, what they are doing is cumulatively expanding the range of possibilities to be tested.
That’s better.
mkfreeberg: We have experience/experiment-oriented science, science that involves work, and then we have science that exists entirely outside of that, catechism-science, which does “science” simply by lending cachet to untested explanations by authoritatively repeating them over & over.
You indicated above that you were talking about people repeating something they heard, but in the scientific community, only original research tends to get published. Are you referring only to the cultural phenomenon?
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 08:47When you quote somebody, especially when you quote them with the purpose y’all have in mind (“You said such-and-such, but if such-and-such then that would mean so-and-so, so GOTCHA!!”) it is necessary to confine the quote to what the other person had in mind, both in letter and in spirit. Inserting your own impressions into it — “impossibly” — enters the realm of the disputed while you’re in the midst of quoting the other person, thus making the quote ineffectual.
It is a “straw man fallacy” at work. Worse yet, it LOOKS like that.
severian is right; y’all do suck at this.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 08:53mkfreeberg: Inserting your own impressions into it — “impossibly” — enters the realm of the disputed while you’re in the midst of quoting the other person, thus making the quote ineffectual.
Gee whiz, mkfreeberg. Impossible is our word.
Z: It’s impossible to account for every possible explanation.
Z: You said you had to eliminate all POSSIBLE explanations, but that is IMPOSSIBLE.
Our claim is that it is impossible to “exhaustively list” all possible explanations.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 08:58Here is the complete quote:
“It,” therefore, is…drum roll, please…deductive reasoning on which the science relies, not the science itself. When scientists come up with a new theory to explain an older, as-yet-unexplained observation, what they are doing is cumulatively expanding the field of possibilities. So to do that, clearly, they must be disagreeing with y’all’s position that this exhaustive capture is impossible or that there’s any sense of futility attached to such an impossibility.
The forming of the newer theory is therefore a ‘fessing up: We hypothesize that our previous deductive-reasoning job did not work, because we (or they) did not take this possibility into account. There are many examples of this. The sun’s effect on so-called man-made climate change, for example.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 09:12The Zachriel are the hack movie critics of argumentation.
“Jeez, that Battlefield Earth movie’s a real turd. Everyone should stay far, far away. Nobody who cares about movies at all should watch it.”
Z: So everyone should see it. Glad we agree.
Huh?
Z: You said everyone should watch it.
What? I said everyone shouldn’t watch it! “Nobody who cares about movies at all should watch it.”
Z: “Care” is defined as a feeling-state applying to persons. See Obfuscation and Bullshit, 2002. Since movies are not persons, it is impossible to care about a movie. So your statement is a non sequitur.
Ummm, ok, but you still shouldn’t watch it. It’s terrible.
Z: But you said “everyone….shoud watch it.” Are you retracting your previous claim?
I said “Everyone should stay far, far away. Nobody who cares about movies at all should ever watch it.”
Z: Right. everyone…should watch it. Glad we are in agreement.
Repeat ad infinitum.
- Severian | 01/12/2014 @ 09:49mkfreeberg: Here is the complete quote:
Yes, we read the complete quote. We took issue with this:
mkfreeberg: 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed, and 2) each item within that list was eliminated conservatively.
‘You can’t exhaustively list every *possible* cause. You have since clarified that when you said, “When scientists come up with new theories to explain old observations, what they are doing is cumulatively expanding the range of possibilities to be tested.” We agree with that formulation.
mkfreeberg: “It,” therefore, is…drum roll, please…deductive reasoning on which the science relies, not the science itself.
While deduction is essential to the scientific method, it is not sufficient.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 13:13While deduction is essential to the scientific method, it is not sufficient.
Which might be relevant if I said something like “deductive reasoning doesn’t work if the range of possibilities is not exhaustively listed, and without deductive reasoning you can’t have science, therefore you can’t have science if you do not exhaustively list the possibilities.” But that is not what I said.
Your semantic quibbles seem to be formulated for these “people [who have lost] track of how easy it is to do [deductive reasoning] improperly”…and do not care to, or are not to be encouraged to, get a grip.
Fact is, it’s very easy to screw up any process of deductive reasoning, which does not work at all if it does not proceed from an exhaustive listing of the possibilities. Which is why real scientists put a value on new theories, that can cumulatively add to the range of possibilities to be considered. Real science “relies a great deal” on this.
Catechism-science, on the other hand, relies on the Gods of the Copybook Headings; repeating the same things over and over again, with cosmetic authority, big names and false cachet.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 17:21mkfreeberg: Fact is, it’s very easy to screw up any process of deductive reasoning, which does not work at all if it does not proceed from an exhaustive listing of the possibilities.
In science, it is impossible to “proceed from an exhaustive listing of the possibilities.” Not sure why you insist upon repeating the same faulty formulation.
mkfreeberg: scientists put a value on new theories, that can cumulatively add to the range of possibilities to be considered.
Well, scientists put value of theories that can reasonably explain the facts.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 18:13In science, it is impossible to “proceed from an exhaustive listing of the possibilities.” Not sure why you insist upon repeating the same faulty formulation.
I’m going over it until y’all get it. Baby steps. I was talking about deductive reasoning, not science. Right? Deductive reasoning is what doesn’t work if the listing of possibilities is incomplete. Not science.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 18:30mkfreeberg: I was talking about deductive reasoning, not science.
Um, “One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning … ” Yes, you’re talking about science.
mkfreeberg: Deductive reasoning is what doesn’t work if the listing of possibilities is incomplete.
Then you’re saying that scientists can’t use deduction as part of the scientific method because they can never exhaustively list all possibilities? That can’t be right, because they can never exhaustively list all possibilities. Here’s a typical scientific deduction:
Are there other possible explanations? There are an *infinitude* of possible explanations, from fairies to curves in space. But the deduction is still sound. Indeed, the deduction has nothing whatsoever to do with listing any other causes.
And if the pendulum is retarded? What does that say about the Earth’s rotation?
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 18:44I’ll take that as a no, then. Y’all won’t acknowledge I was talking about deductive reasoning.
One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning, and while deductive reasoning is most persuasive when it is carried out properly, people lose track of how easy it is to do it improperly. It [deductive reasoning] doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless
severian was right about y’all. Your reading comprehension does suck.
This is probably why most people don’t use a single login ID for multiple people. Seems there is one among you who is foraging for “gotchas” like a blind squirrel strung out on Red Bull and crank, and another among you who looks at large, complex subject matters through a straw. Maybe those two should be using different user IDs. Might make things less confusing for all concerned, and y’all wouldn’t come across as brain-damaged or learning-disabled. Just a thought.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 19:03mkfreeberg: Y’all won’t acknowledge I was talking about deductive reasoning.
You said, “One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning … ” You went further to discuss “causes”, again emphasizing the relationship to science.
The rules of deduction are the same, whether as part of science or not. But many deductions do not involve “lists”, much less “exhaustive lists”. We provided an example above using linked conditionals, the most common deduction in science. No lists.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 20:08And, “it,” as in “it doesn’t work at all,” is deductive reasoning. Not science.
All one has to do to see your “gotcha” ain’t worth spit, is go back to look at my original quote, in context.
Right?
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 20:19You still have yet to address the multiple problems with your statement. You said deductive reasoning doesn’t work unless an exhaustive list of causes is made.
1) Science uses deduction, and it’s impossible to list all possible causes.
2) Many deductions have nothing to do with causation.
3) Many deductions do not involve exhaustive lists.
We provided an typical example of deduction that doesn’t involve an exhaustive list.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 20:42You still have yet to address the multiple problems with your statement.
Two untruths in one statement. There are no problems with my statement, and I did address your irrelevant quibbles.
Y’all have yet to address the fact that your “gotcha” is based on “it” referring to science rather than to deductive reasoning, and a very brief check on the context of my original statement reveals this to be in error.
Right?
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 20:45We directly addressed your claim about deductive reasoning. We even numbered the objections for you.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2014 @ 20:57Probably an overstatement to call them “objections,” or “problems.”
Maybe most accurate to call them “sentences that have the word ‘deduction’ in them.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2014 @ 21:16*Sigh,*
Diagram the sentence, Cuttlefish. Identify subject, object, verb.
- Severian | 01/13/2014 @ 03:23mkfreeberg: Maybe most accurate to call them “sentences that have the word ‘deduction’ in them.”
We raised three objections. Parsing the several sentences somewhat, we have,
‘science relies on deductive reasoning’
That is correct. Deduction is necessary in science, though not sufficient.
‘People lose track of how easy it is to do “deduction” improperly’
That’s often the case—though your original post seems more about socially transmitted mistruths, not deductions.
‘Deduction ‘doesn’t work at all unless the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed’
This is incorrect.
1) Deduction in science uses the same rules as deduction elsewhere. Yet, in science, we can never exhaustively list all possible causes.
2) Many deductions do not involve exhaustive lists.
3) Many deductions have nothing to do with causation.
Here’s a classic deduction from science.
This is standard hypothetico-deduction. We make a tentative assumption, then deduce testable implications of that assumption. It’s a valid deduction, but does not involve an exhaustive list of causes.
- Zachriel | 01/13/2014 @ 06:49I think y’all have made the point by now: It’s easy for people to “feel” educated while they’re not learning anything, in fact, coming up with excuses to avoid changing their mindsets, to avoid absorbing new information.
Thanks for the demonstration. That, folks, is how catechism-science works.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2014 @ 07:00mkfreeberg: Thanks for the demonstration.
Notably, you didn’t respond to our objections. You are wrong about deduction. Deduction does not require exhaustive lists. We provided a classic example.
- Zachriel | 01/13/2014 @ 07:07Y’all are taking a position that deductive reasoning works when it’s used only within a partial list of the possibilities?
Yeah sure it can be right that way, the same way a stopped clock can be right. If that’s the case, then it isn’t reasoning. If it isn’t reasoning, it doesn’t work as deductive reasoning. So, what I said is correct.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2014 @ 07:11mkfreeberg: Y’all are taking a position that deductive reasoning works when it’s used only within a partial list of the possibilities?
Our position is that many deductions don’t involve lists at all. Take a look at the example we provided.
- Zachriel | 01/13/2014 @ 07:20I did. Your examples do involve lists, y’all are just overlooking that. So they don’t do anything to address what I said.
Thing I Know #183. When an education has given you the ability to dismiss ideas more quickly, it’s not really an education.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2014 @ 07:23mkfreeberg: Your examples do involve lists
Let’s look at the sample deduction: If Newtonian Mechanics, and if the Earth rotates, it will bulge at the equator.
What exhaustive list of causes is involved in this deduction?
- Zachriel | 01/13/2014 @ 07:281) Newton is right, the Earth rotates, therefore there is a bulge at the equator.
2) Newton is right, but the Earth doesn’t rotate, therefore there is no bulge at the equator.
3) Newton is wrong, and the Earth’s rotation does not bear any correlative relationship to whether or not there is a bulge at the equator.
By applying the exper-ience of exper-imentation, we deduct some of the possibilities from this list.
If we have indeed fallen short of the goal of coming up with an exhaustive list, some intrepid scientist of the future, doin’ the science, might come up with a new theory that has escaped our notice. In so doing, he will be operating on the entirely valid notion that perhaps our deductive reasoning didn’t work, as reasoning, because our list of possibilities was incomplete. His paper will specify exactly how.
Both the incremental expansion of possibilities to be considered, previously unthought-of, and the experimentation that eliminates the possibilities — conservatively — qualify as good science. Then we have the catechism-science, which consists of coming up with a theory that will resonate, and getting it resonated.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2014 @ 18:08Our position is that many deductions don’t involve lists at all. Take a look at the example we provided.
It’s fascinating y’all should take the position that this example doesn’t involve a list.
Almost charming. Like a four-year-old who’s only seen the cuckoo clock from the outside, getting in a shouting match with the clock repairman or clockmaker about whether there are gears inside.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2014 @ 18:09And, of course, the very phrase “given Newton’s laws of motion” is a list. A very exclusive one, containing only one member, but a list nonetheless.
And I think it’s obvious how a real scientist would react if he couldn’t prove anything given the givens. Hmmmm… none of our deductions worked out. Perhaps there’s some other factor at work besides Newton’s laws. Or perhaps Newton’s laws are wrong.
The catechist, by contrast, makes ever more frantic attempts to shoehorn things into the only explanation on the list. I’m sure a few hemicycles and some retrograde motion will do the trick.
The Zachriel would come back with something about the definition of lists.
- Severian | 01/13/2014 @ 18:38mkfreeberg: 1) Newton is right, the Earth rotates, therefore there is a bulge at the equator.
2) Newton is right, but the Earth doesn’t rotate, therefore there is no bulge at the equator.
3) Newton is wrong, and the Earth’s rotation does not bear any correlative relationship to whether or not there is a bulge at the equator.
Sorry, that’s not an exhaustive list of causes. Furthermore, with hypothetico-deduction, the hypothesis is tentatively accepted as true for the purposes of the initial deduction.
Severian: And, of course, the very phrase “given Newton’s laws of motion” is a list. A very exclusive one, containing only one member, but a list nonetheless.
Only a single cause is considered, so it is hardly exhaustive.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 05:38Z: Sorry, that’s not an exhaustive list of causes…
++ahem++
M: If we have indeed fallen short of the goal of coming up with an exhaustive list, some intrepid scientist of the future, doin’ the science, might come up with a new theory that has escaped our notice. In so doing, he will be operating on the entirely valid notion that perhaps our deductive reasoning didn’t work, as reasoning, because our list of possibilities was incomplete. His paper will specify exactly how.
That’s how science works.
Z: Our position is that many deductions don’t involve lists at all.
Debunked.
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 06:52mkfreeberg: ++ahem++
There’s no attempt to list all possible causes in the example provided. A single cause is proposed, the implications are deduced from that cause. There is nothing about other possible causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 06:55I see, I see. Y’all win and I lose, because y’all didn’t attempt to do something, and I did try…y’all can’t see something I can see. The four-year-old arguing endlessly about whether or not the clock has gears.
Like I pointed out already…
Interesting mindset y’all have going on here. Seems like y’all have been going through the Internet, for a decade now, pronouncing certain ideas as “wrong” because they happen to not be verbatim echoes of what y’all think y’all “know.”
Y’all have every right in the world to do this, but y’all can take part in that dance without me I’m afraid. Takes too much work, and it’s the opposite of learning. It’s the opposite of real science, too. If everyone thought that way we’d still be living in caves.
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 07:01mkfreeberg: Y’all win and I lose, because y’all didn’t attempt to do something, and I did try
It has nothing to do with winning or losing. You made a false claim, that deduction must exhaustively list causes. However, not all deductions have to do with causation, and exhaustive lists are not always a component of valid deductions. We provided an example. Exactly one cause is listed, which is assumed to be true. From that, implications are deduced. It’s a valid deduction, typical in science, that doesn’t require an exhaustive listing of causes. Indeed, science couldn’t progress if it required an exhaustive list of all possible causes. We simply can’t know all possible causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 07:06You made a false claim…
Been suspecting for awhile there’s no more thought behind that than a frog saying “ribbit” or a cat meowing. Now I know. My claim is supposedly debunked, that there are lists at work here, because The Zachriel cannot see the list even though the list is clearly there. Options, in y’all’s own example, are being eliminated. I explained how, and y’all replied back “Sorry, that’s not an exhaustive list of causes.” Well, sorry, it looks exhaustive to me. And if it truly isn’t, I’ve already addressed how that fits into the real scientific process.
Meanwhile…
Z: Our position is that many deductions don’t involve lists at all.
Debunked.
The very name gives it away. Deductive reasoning relies on deducting from something. These are possibilities being deducted from a list. It happens, as I’ve demonstrated, in y’all’s own example. It happens in the very simplest and earliest one (“All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal”).
But y’all don’t believe in the lists, that means y’all don’t believe in the deducting. Looks to me like that would mean y’all don’t believe in the testing itself — how could you? But, I do acknowledge that just because I can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 07:18mkfreeberg: Deductive reasoning relies on deducting from something. These are possibilities being deducted from a list.
The classic example we gave doesn not deduce from a list. It’s axiomatic deduction. There certainly is no exhaustive list of causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 07:25@Morgan,
hey, speaking of frogs ribbiting….
Me: And, of course, the very phrase “given Newton’s laws of motion” is a list. A very exclusive one, containing only one member, but a list nonetheless. [Real scientists reexamine this if their experiments don’t work, while catechists try to shoehorn stuff back into the list]. The Zachriel…come back with something about the definition of lists.
The Zachriel: Only a single cause is considered, so it is hardly exhaustive.
Kinda says it all, doesn’t it. They’ve gone from The Cuttlefish to the Honey Smacks mascot.
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 07:51Severian: Real scientists reexamine this if their experiments don’t work, while catechists try to shoehorn stuff back into the list.
Nonetheless, the deduction does not involve an exhaustive list of causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 10:39In the same way the clock doesn’t have gears.
Just hands, and a face, nothing more. I mean, look at it. It’s obvious.
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 11:05Ah! The premises are a secret.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 11:21Sigh. Once again we come to the Reading Comprehension Floor Exercises of the Obtuseness Olympics.
Please explain the thought process by which y’all… ahem….deduced that
means
What specific words indicate “secret” to y’all?
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 11:39Mkfreeberg claimed that deduction requires an exhaustive list of possible causes, which is odd in itself, as many deductions have nothing to do with causation.
We provided a classic deduction from science. According to mkfreeberg’s claim either there is such an exhaustive list of causes, or the deduction “doesn’t work”. Mkfreeberg further suggested the list is hidden, like the gears of a watch. That’s also rather odd, because deduction relies on explicit steps. In any case, please provide that exhaustive list of possible causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 13:40So
means “hidden” to y’all.
And hidden means “secret.”
Intriguing.
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 14:15Severian: means “hidden” to y’all.
We’re more than willing to listen. Please provide that exhaustive list of possible causes.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 14:17So that IS your claim? It’s a yes/no question, kids — even y’all should be able to comprehend that much.
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 14:47Y’all have already evaluated one exhaustive list, and found it to be wanting. But y’all never did say how.
I waited for clarification, which never came…
So that IS your claim?
Their claim, if I’m interpreting it correctly…oh no wait check that, there is no interpretation necessary:
Until they can come up with something I left off my exhaustive listing, that claim has been refuted and they’ve lost, lost, lost. After all, it only takes one example.
But this notion that the act of eliminating, or deducting, possibilities from a list, is outside of the true meaning of “deducting reasoning”: It’s quite fascinating. They can’t see the list, because they do all their “reasoning” by reading words others have written. Therefore, there must not be a list. Just like the toddler getting into a screaming match with the clock repairman about there must not be any gears in the clock, because she can’t see them.
It’s quite antithetical to science itself. If mankind decided early on that whatever could not be seen or understood, must not exist or must be irrelevant — why would we need science at all?
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 17:44mkfreeberg: Until they can come up with something I left off my exhaustive listing
Your exhaustive list includes exactly one item. Is that correct?
mkfreeberg: But this notion that the act of eliminating, or deducting, possibilities from a list, is outside of the true meaning of “deducting reasoning”
No, we didn’t say that. Rather we said there were valid deductions that don’t involve causation or exhaustive lists.
But we’ll wait for your answer.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 17:541) Newton is right, the Earth rotates, therefore there is a bulge at the equator.
2) Newton is right, but the Earth doesn’t rotate, therefore there is no bulge at the equator.
3) Newton is wrong, and the Earth’s rotation does not bear any correlative relationship to whether or not there is a bulge at the equator.
Y’all pronounced this list to be incomplete, but did not say how.
I waited for a clarification, which never came…just like those guys on the Titanic lifeboat waiting for their absolution or something…
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 17:57So the exhaustive list is that Newton is right or Newton is wrong. Is that what you mean by an exhaustive list?
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 17:59Would that not cover everything?
You never did clarify how this list failed to do so. I waited for clarification, which never came…
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2014 @ 18:15You have a hard time giving explicit answers. Not sure why.
mkfreeberg: Would that not cover everything?
Heh.
* Exhaustive list of things found at the grocery: Celery, everything else found at the grocery.
* Shorter exhaustive list of things found at the grocery: everything found at the grocery.
Anyway, that’s not the deduction. This is the deduction:
Given Newton’s Mechanics is True,
Given The Earth Rotates is True,
∴ the Retardation of Pendulum.
The deduction is *valid*. Do you understand what that means?
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 18:22“Newton is right” and “Newton is wrong” is an exhaustive list of the possible answers to a question about whether Newton was right or not. “Everything at the grocery store” is not an exhaustive list of the possible items at the grocery store, as it is a tautology.
See the difference? “Is Zachriel retarded?” is a question that admits of two possible answers — yes or no. “Why are the Zachriel so retarded?” has a much wider range of possible answers. “The Zachriel are retarded because they’re retarded” is a tautology, which doesn’t explain anything. It is, however, valid, as tautologies are by definition valid. It’s only by fortuitous coincidence that in this particular case, the tautological explanation is also sufficient.
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 18:47Severian: “Newton is right” and “Newton is wrong” is an exhaustive list of the possible answers to a question about whether Newton was right or not.
You get exhausted easily. In any case, the deduction assumes the truth of the premises.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 18:52Severian: a tautology, which doesn’t explain anything
Mathematics is a tautology.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 18:53More specifically, “Newton is wrong” is not a cause, but we could reword that as “Newtonian Mechanics” and “All other causes”.
- Zachriel | 01/14/2014 @ 19:21You get exhausted easily.
Yes, y’all’s retardation is exhausting. Glad we agree.
But this is so simple even y’all should be able to understand it. The exhaustive list of possible correct answers to the question “was Newton right?” is “yes” or “no.” That’s how yes/no questions work.
- Severian | 01/14/2014 @ 20:06The classic example we gave doesn not deduce from a list. It’s axiomatic deduction. There certainly is no exhaustive list of causes.
Axiom was one of my math teacher’s favorite words, back in 10th grade:
axiomatic (adj.):
1 : taken for granted : self-evident
2 : based on or involving an axiom or system of axioms
axiom (n.):
a rule or principal that many people accept as true
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
That word doesn’t quite fit the Newtonian theory being discussed here. But if it did, that would practically be synonymous with “catechism science”: Existing outside of experience or experimentation. Just like a church catechism. It achieves a cosmetic weight, because 1) the elites support it, 2) the commoners repeat it so darn often, and 3) it seems part of the contract that binds our society together and makes it viable, obliges us all to think 1) and 2) are good enough.
And, they are, for most things. But not for what we used to call “science.” You’re supposed to test things in science, usually toward the end of ruling out possibilities.
From a compiled list, that someone has at least tried to make exhaustive. Far from impossible, when it comes to binary decisions that’s actually pretty easy.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 05:08Severian: The exhaustive list of possible correct answers to the question “was Newton right?” is “yes” or “no.”
It’s not an exhaustive list of causes. It’s not even causes.
mkfreeberg: That word doesn’t quite fit the Newtonian theory being discussed here.
That’s exactly what they’re called.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA19
mkfreeberg: But if it did, that would practically be synonymous with “catechism science”
Merriam-Webseter: hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
—
This is a classic deduction:
Given Newton’s Mechanics is True,
Given The Earth Rotates is True,
∴ the Retardation of Pendulum.
The deduction is *valid*. Do you understand what that means?
Given A ⊂ B
Given B ⊂ C
∴ A ⊂ C
The deduction is *valid*. It may or may not be sound, depending on what constitutes the sets of A and B. Notice also that the deduction doesn’t involve causation.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 06:34It’s not even causes.
Who brought up “causes”? I mentioned “possibilities.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 07:27From the original post:
mkfreeberg: One of the most important of these reasons is that science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning,
Then you denied you had brought up science.
mkfreeberg: 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed
Then you denied you had brought up causes, which reinforces that you were talking about science.
But, no matter. We took that denial as a clarification of sorts. You insisted you were only talking about deduction itself. So then we provided a classic deduction from physics for discussion which assumes the axioms of Newton’s Mechanics.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 07:34Here’s the deduction again:
Given Newton’s Mechanics is True,
Given The Earth Rotates is True,
∴ the Retardation of Pendulum.
This hypothetico-deduction is crucial for the scientific method. We don’t list all possible causes—we can’t! From the single cause, we deduce empirical implications.
What does it mean if the retardation is observed? What does it mean if the retardation is not observed?
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 07:40What does it mean if the retardation is observed?
An excellent question, that. One I ponder whenever I see y’all have infested another comment thread.
- Severian | 01/15/2014 @ 09:26Looks like we need to go back to context, again. Not sure why we have to keep doing this. Well, I guess I do have an idea.
So, this is pretty clear: “It,” as in “it doesn’t work at all,” refers to the deductive reasoning process, not science. And “possible causes,” obviously, emphasizes “possibilities” (final sentence).
So y’all think y’all can pull out a victory here by way of something called “axiomatic deduction.” This is interesting. In y’all’s zeal to try to distract from my observation of things called “science” that do not use the scientific method, y’all have shown how catechism-science works. And, even, cited it while using a different phrase to describe it. Axiomatic deduction. Heh heh.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 18:23mkfreeberg: So, this is pretty clear: “It,” as in “it doesn’t work at all,” refers to the deductive reasoning process, not science.
No, it wasn’t clear, as you said deduction can’t work without an exhaustive list of causes, causation usually being associated with the natural world. But we took your later comments as a sort of clarification, that you were referring to deduction itself, and we responded in kind.
mkfreeberg: So y’all think y’all can pull out a victory here by way of something called “axiomatic deduction.”
We never used that term, but deduction from axioms is exactly how logic and mathematics work, as well as Newtonian Mechanics. We have axioms, and we use those to deduce various results. As Severian obliquely reminded us, mathematics, from Euler’s identity to the transcendentalism of π, is tautological. We assume the parallel postulate, from which we can deduce many wonderful theorems.
We understand you are trying to make a point about what you call “catechism-science”, but you can’t make that point effectively when your argument has such evident flaws. We provided a couple of examples.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 19:13No, it wasn’t clear…
Actually, now that we’ve revisited the original context, it was. It really was.
“It” didn’t refer to science. It referred to deductive reasoning, as a reasoning process. It’s pretty clear. As in, not a lot of ambiguity there. At all.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 19:21You seem to be conflating deduction with argument. While an argument includes deduction, argumentation is rarely just deduction. Let’s leave aside the error about deduction for a moment.
mkfreeberg: Or, to be more precise about it and maybe a bit more tactful, it is a (questionably) valid exercise of what might be real scientific thinking, within an arbitrarily restricted scope of possibilities, thus rendered at least partially useless.
Yes, scientists should consider every explanation available to them. Yet given that, scientists are not in the business of reinventing the wheel. Planets on crystal spheres have been largely discounted long ago. Scientists do rely on received knowledge. This is a strength and a weakness, but far more a strength. The scientific method allows the accumulation of knowledge over time.
You provided some examples. One was a mangled interpretation of a scientific finding being passed around by laypersons. (A very famous example involving Percy and Mary Shelley, and Lord Byron, concerns “vermicelli” and the year without a summer.) Another concerned a debunked study, the telling of which among laypersons never seems to die. Still another concerns your own misperceptions about climate science. The last of the three doesn’t seem to be the same phenomenon as the other two, which are stories among laypersons; that is, unless it is the so-called skeptics’ constant rehashing of the same debunked claims.
–
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 19:32Sorry. We did use the phrase “axiomatic deduction”. It’s a valid phrase, but is often associated with economics. We rephrased it above, as “deduction from axioms”. They mean the same, but without the connotations of the former.
You seem to be conflating deduction with argument.
No, you are conflating deductive reasoning with science.
If a scientist submits a paper saying: This experiment considered such-and-such a field of possibilities, and arrived at a conclusion — here is a possibility they had not considered — that scientist is effectively repeating the deductive reasoning process, with an additional possibility to consider. In effect, he is saying the deductive reasoning did not work. But, at the same time, the science does work. The prior researchers did good science, and now he is also doing science. It’s all part of the method.
But, as a reasoning process, the deduction does not work if it fails to consider real possibilities that should have been considered. Or, eliminates them prematurely.
You take issue with some of that? What part, specifically? And why?
Axiomatic deductions. Heh.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 19:36mkfreeberg: It referred to deductive reasoning, as a reasoning process.
It’s an error is to conflate deduction and reasoning. Deduction is a specific type of reasoning. While, it is correct to say that scientists should consider all possibilities they can, it is not correct to say that deduction requires an exhaustive list of causes. That seems to be the source of the confusion.
Your overall point we addressed in our last comment.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 19:38mkfreeberg: No, you are conflating deductive reasoning with science.
Not at all. Science uses hypothetico-deduction. We haven’t discussed that in detail because you can’t get past the initial deduction in the simple example we provided. Take another look. Is it a valid deduction?
mkfreeberg: If a scientist submits a paper saying: This experiment considered such-and-such a field of possibilities, and arrived at a conclusion — here is a possibility they had not considered — that scientist is effectively repeating the deductive reasoning process, with an additional possibility to consider.
You don’t have a very good grasp of deduction. Deduction “is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.” What you are describing is scientific practice. A scientist should not only consider his own hypothesis, but any possible objections or alternative explanations.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 19:43It’s an error is to conflate deduction and reasoning. Deduction is a specific type of reasoning.
Well alright, I’ll keep an eye out for anybody who biffs it that way, and if I see ’em I’ll be sure and let ’em know. From the original post:
…science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning, and while deductive reasoning is most persuasive when it is carried out properly, people lose track of how easy it is to do it improperly…
“Reasoning” is an important word here. The thing to keep in mind is, you can arrive at a correct conclusion after having followed a reasoning process that does not work; in other words, is not really a reasoning process, but only looks like one. Think of, shaking a Magic-8 ball.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 19:50mkfreeberg: The thing to keep in mind is, you can arrive at a correct conclusion after having followed a reasoning process that does not work; in other words, is not really a reasoning process, but only looks like one.
That is correct.
Did you want to follow through on the rest of your argument?
- Zachriel | 01/15/2014 @ 20:22I did.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2014 @ 20:30mkfreeberg: I did.
Even though you talk about science, and the examples are about science, it’s not about science. Even though you talk about deduction requiring exhaustive lists of causes, it’s not about deduction. It’s about reasoning. Or it’s about how people relay faulty information. Or something.
After thousands of words, we readily agreed with your latest statement concerning faulty reasoning. It really wasn’t as hard as you made it.
mkfreeberg: I did.
We responded to your examples. They don’t all seem to be of a kind, nor do they involve reasoning directly about an issue. It’s about the communication of knowledge. Consider the autism-vaccine connection. Questions were raised in the scientific community because other, much wider studies didn’t support the connection. Meanwhile, the story continued to be disseminated among people who are generally suspicious of technology, particularly on the political left. Eventually, it was determined that the original study was fraudulent. Nonetheless, the story wouldn’t die. It was a zombie-lie. Please note that it was scientists who debunked the original study.
You call this phenomenon ‘catechism-science’. So we take that to mean so-called scientific information that is spread through the culture regardless of its veracity. It becomes part of the fabric of social thought, and is repeated, like a catechism until it becomes accepted truth. Is that correct?
But then you say this,
mkfreeberg: Statements formed within these sciences, involve a consistent situation in which the speaker is pointing to someone else, and nobody really knows much of anything except how to repeat things that someone else has said.
But the autism-vaccine story wasn’t something within the scientific community. Scientists were soon aware of problems with the study, and became suspicious when the original study couldn’t be replicated. The problem was the lay public who repeated the original study, even after it was debunked, because it confirmed their preconceptions about technology.
Nor was the Superbowl example something within the scientific community, but more akin to the “vermicelli” incident.
The climate science example is clearly argumentative. Published studies do not simply repeat a catechism, but involve new research. While group-think is certainly possible, the climate science community spans different countries, political systems, and cultures. Furthermore, there is a great incentive to overturn an existing paradigm, which works against any catechism.
mkfreeberg: Therefore — if you ask fairly innocuous questions, questions you ought to be able to ask of real science, such as, “how do we know that?” or “just how sure are we of that?”
Those are very good questions. Never heard you ask those questions before in our discussions. Perhaps you have delved into those matters elsewhere.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2014 @ 07:21… it’s not about science.
Sure it is.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2014 @ 20:18mkfreeberg: I was talking about deductive reasoning, not science
- Zachriel | 01/16/2014 @ 20:31…science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning…
So. Y’all’s statement “it’s not about science” was false. That was a false statement.
I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 01/17/2014 @ 03:50mkfreeberg: Y’all’s statement “it’s not about science” was false.
No. Your position has been inconsistent. You said, “science relies a great deal on deductive reasoning”, and then when pressed you said “I was talking about deductive reasoning, not science”.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2014 @ 05:33So once again, y’all won’t admit a demonstrably false position is false.
I’ve already reviewed the context. The word “it,” as in “it doesn’t work at all,” applies to deductive reasoning and not science. It isn’t my position that is inconsistent, it is the context in which y’all are challenging things, because y’all look at everything through a straw.
That isn’t my problem.
- mkfreeberg | 01/17/2014 @ 05:42mkfreeberg: y’all won’t admit a demonstrably false position is false.
It’s neither true nor false because your position is inconsistent. We have tried to ask questions to resolve the inconsistencies, but you seem to take offense.
mkfreeberg: The word “it,” as in “it doesn’t work at all,” applies to deductive reasoning and not science.
Okay. And we objected to your description of deduction.
1) Deduction in science uses the same rules as deduction elsewhere. Yet, in science, we can never exhaustively list all possible causes.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2014 @ 13:042) Many deductions do not involve exhaustive lists.
3) Many deductions have nothing to do with causation.
Leasing aside your evident confusion about deduction, our previous comment also tries to restate and understand your larger point.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2014 @ 13:13http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/i-made-a-new-word-lxvii/comment-page-3/#comment-22666
Y’all have yet to cite an example of a deduction that does not involve an exhaustive list. Y’all thought y’all did, that example was refuted. This is the part where y’all get to learn something.
The pea is under one of the shells. It is not under the left shell or the middle shell, it must be under the right shell. Hey, look — they’re possibilities, not a cause. it’s deductive because possibilities are being deducted. It breaks down if the list of possibilities is not exhaustive (the pea is in the gamemaster’s pocket).
Deduction in science uses the same rules as deduction elsewhere.
Glad we agree on that.
Proceeding to catechism-science: That would be, in this example, outspoken and/or famous people with their big credible luminous names, repeating a mantra over and over “the pea is under the left shell.” This would be a deduction that does not involve an exhaustive list. And….doesn’t work. Unless we re-define science, and think of it as a process of producing consensus, as opposed to a process of learning about anything.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 06:25mkfreeberg: Hey, look — they’re possibilities, not a cause.
So, you repudiate your claim about causes, that deduction “doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed”. That’s fine. That’s what you should do.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have yet to cite an example of a deduction that does not involve an exhaustive list.
The example from classic physics only provides a single cause. “Newton is wrong” is not a cause. Nor is every other possible mechanics except Newtonian Mechanics a cause. But that’s still irrelevant, because validity of a deduction does not depend on the truth of the premises. Do you understand this?
If we were to say:
If A then B
If B then C
A therefore C
Would you say our deduction was valid?
mkfreeberg: Proceeding to catechism-science: That would be, in this example, outspoken and/or famous people with their big credible luminous names, repeating a mantra over and over “the pea is under the left shell.”
Sure. You seem to be pointing to a social phenomenon. While science isn’t immune to group-think, there is a great incentive to overturn an existing paradigm, which works against any catechism. But your examples of the autism-vaccine link and Superbowl day seem appropriate. Then there’s always the vermicelli incident!
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 08:40So, you repudiate your claim about causes, that deduction “doesn’t work at all, in fact, unless 1) the range of possible causes has been exhaustively listed”. That’s fine. That’s what you should do.
I’ve repudiated nothing. I have endeavored to explain. Not sure what else I can do to help you.
So strange, looks almost like a daddy issue; one or more among your collective saw their daddies win arguments by saying “I don’t understand” or “that isn’t what you said before,” and now y’all are trying to repeat it but you lack understanding of the meaning behind the technique.
Does it work? Let’s see: In one place I used “possible causes,” in other places I adhered more closely to the general rule and mentioned possibilities. A collective of unknown size, of anonymous individuals on the Internet, claims this confused them even though others have stepped forward and stated that my meaning was clear to them. This somehow means my argument fails. Does it?
mkfreeberg: I’ve repudiated nothing.
Your original post said that induction required an exhaustive list of causes, but not all induction concern causation.
mkfreeberg: In one place I used “possible causes,” in other places I adhered more closely to the general rule and mentioned possibilities.
Good. So you misspoke. So now to the claim that deduction requires an exhaustive list of possibilities. If we were to say:
If A then B
If B then C
A therefore C
Would you say our deduction was valid?
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 10:45mkfreeberg: “Well you misspelled a word so your pont is mute {sic}.”
That’s not our position. Rather it’s that you made a claim that forms the basis for your argument, and alternative between positions concerning the claim.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 10:49Good. So you misspoke.
No, not even that actually. Y’all got hung up on this “causes” thing because y’all have zeroed in on the main point as something y’all don’t want anybody noticing, or discussing. So y’all tried to kick up some confusion by exploring a differentiation that isn’t relevant.
M: Pie requires crust. This chocolate pie, for example…
Z: Not all pies are chocolate.
M: Uh, yeah, whatever.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 10:49mkfreeberg: So y’all tried to kick up some confusion by exploring a differentiation that isn’t relevant.
Then the proper course is to abandon it, especially when it is false.
mkfreeberg: M: Pie requires crust. This chocolate pie, for example…
Z: Not all pies are chocolate.
M: Uh, yeah, whatever.
The flavor of pie would be irrelevant to your premise. One would have to see the full syllogism to determine whether it was valid or not. See how easy it is to answer objections.
But you didn’t answer our question.
If A then B
If B then C
A therefore C
Would you say our deduction was valid?
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 10:53It isn’t false.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 10:54mkfreeberg: It isn’t false.
Are you suggesting that the validity of the deduction can’t be determined, or that validity is not a characteristic of deduction?
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 10:57I’m suggesting that the crowd of y’all is awfully free and easy with that word “false.” Probably comes from this incredibly low bar y’all have for self-assessing the job y’all are doing “falsifying” things.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 10:59mkfreeberg: I’m suggesting that the crowd of y’all is awfully free and easy with that word “false.”
But you didn’t answer the question.
If A then B
If B then C
A therefore C
Would you say the deduction is valid?
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 11:02I don’t see how it’s relevant.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 11:04mkfreeberg: I don’t see how it’s relevant.
You made a claim about what is required of all deductions. We provide a deduction for discussion. Notably, it’s taken you thousands of words, over several days, to avoid answering the question. Your last comment alone was six words, when a simple yes or no probably would have sufficed. You might have added a few words, “Of course it is”. Still only four words. Or you might have said “It’s not a deduction” for four words.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 11:11It seems we’ve arrived at yet another Overcoming Asperger’s moment. Do try to keep up this time:
When you’re the only one in a group having trouble understanding something, the problem isn’t the subject. The problem is you.
- Severian | 01/18/2014 @ 12:12Also, the concept of “false” is an important one when the task is one of figuring out what is & isn’t so. Then, it’s probably a good idea to reserve use of that word for things that are actually, ya know, false.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2014 @ 12:15Severian: When you’re the only one in a group having trouble understanding something, the problem isn’t the subject.
Depends where you are.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 12:15http://endthelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/insane-asylum-patients1.jpe
mkfreeberg: Also, the concept of “false” is an important one when the task is one of figuring out what is & isn’t so.
Sure. Did you have a chance to review the question?
If A then B
If B then C
A therefore C
Would you say the deduction is valid?
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 12:17Depends where you are.
Well then, dear hearts, y’all have to ask yourselves: Has anyone, anywhere, in all of the blog comments y’all infest, ever said “you know, the Zachriel are really on to something here”?
Think about why that might be.
PS Nice .jpg, but here again, you might want to contemplate the sanity of one who argues with lunatics.
- Severian | 01/18/2014 @ 12:28[…] Obama went and did that. It isn’t smart politically, in the sense that it exposes the catechism-science for what it really is: Something masquerading under the label of “science” that […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/30/2014 @ 06:10[…] It’s time to ask questions like this, I think, because force and freedom are measurable and rudimentary concepts. It’s true that “right and wrong” are not quite so simple. We can hash that one out across days, weeks, even years, with good points being made on both sides of a given disagreement. But I would expect any thinking individual to recognize the difference between, let’s say, taking in new information vs. deliberately blocking information out. I would expect them to distinguish properly between forming an opinion about nature in order to test it and validate it against measurements, vs. forming an opinion just to get along with everybody else. I would expect them to differentiate between discovering new things, and achieving unanimity within a collective by getting rid of any & all disagreement. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/22/2014 @ 10:07