This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

Some scenarios:

1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range.

2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods.

3) Our statistical methods are insufficient to produce reliable results.

4) Other.

5) A combination of the above


I would think one of the main problems is that the use of statistical methods are insufficient, on their own, to produce a reliable result. One must create logical explanations if they want to create an accurate theory. For instance, if apple peel seems to really help, then you have to specify the components in the apple that produce such results AND not only test it with statistical methods, but also carefully research how those components interact with our bodies in different circumstances. Of course, the difficulty in this scenario would be in terms of time and money restrictions, as such pedantic practices would be extremely time consuming.

Anyways... any thoughts? :)

Of course, I'm going easy on the food companies. Who knows? Maybe they manipulate research so that one product is favored over the other... :rolleyes:

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful.

There's your first major fallacy. It could be helpful sometimes, or with certain types of cancer, or certain types of people; and harmful in others. It does NOT have to be either/or.

So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

For the reasons I stated above, as well as other factors in the research. But that doesn't negate any of the research ....mainly 'cause it ain't done yet!

Baron Max

The scientific method (SM) is the best method available to test our observations and produce reliable and reproducible results, aimed at understanding the world objectively.

The shortcomings are that it is limited both by our ability to observe and the belief that the tools of the SM are measuring what they ought to measure. In addition, we are also constrained by the extent of pre-existing knowledge in making inferences from the results of these observations. Notwithstanding the inherent assumptions of the statistical methods employed, they are currently our strongest tools since all our hypothesis are framed on assumptions that have their basis in inferences. In fact, for any assumption in science the ultimate basis is belief.

Of course, I'm going easy on the food companies. Who knows? Maybe they manipulate research so that one product is favored over the other... :rolleyes:

And you call yourself a peace-loving person? A person who wants peace and love and goodwill all over the world? ..... Yet you make such vile insinuations and/or accusations about the food industry with nothing to back it up? Or worse, using an example of ONE company to show that whole group is bad?!

Geez, if you're ever on a diplomatic mission, we're all in deeeeeppp, deeepp, doo-doo!! You'll start World War III within 27 seconds of the meeting!! Your posts, almost all of them, are vicious and mean.

Baron Max

There's your first major fallacy. It could be helpful sometimes, or with certain types of cancer, or certain types of people; and harmful in others. It does NOT have to be either/or.
I meant in terms of a single scenario.

For the reasons I stated above, as well as other factors in the research. But that doesn't negate any of the research ....mainly 'cause it ain't done yet!
When will it be done? And why are the conclusions of the research presented as fact?

And you call yourself a peace-loving person? A person who wants peace and love and goodwill all over the world?
Of course! Or you want a peace-loving person to support mass killings for the profit of corporations? :bugeye:

..... Yet you make such vile insinuations and/or accusations about the food industry with nothing to back it up? Or worse, using an example of ONE company to show that whole group is bad?!
I made a statement of a possibility. I never stated it is the truth.

Geez, if you're ever on a diplomatic mission, we're all in deeeeeppp, deeepp, doo-doo!! You'll start World War III within 27 seconds of the meeting!! Your posts, almost all of them, are vicious and mean.

Baron Max
What is vicious in the opposition against corporate abuse?


Btw... what does this have to do with the thread?

My replies:
1)- the scientific method is not limited, exactly, since it can be used to find out new knowledge. What the problem is is that we always lack complete information, and when new information becomes available the problem is solved.

2)- Sort of. Some areas of research do not suffer fom problems like these.
3)- Sometimes. Depends on how they are used.

My replies:
1)- the scientific method is not limited, exactly, since it can be used to find out new knowledge. What the problem is is that we always lack complete information, and when new information becomes available the problem is solved.

2)- Sort of. Some areas of research do not suffer fom problems like these.
3)- Sometimes. Depends on how they are used.


1. Is the scientific method foolproof?

2. Which areas?

3. Why is the null hypothesis equal to zero?

Wow.... only one person voted so far....

:shrug:

1. Is the scientific method foolproof?

2. Which areas?

3. Why is the null hypothesis equal to zero?

That depends on how well you apply it. It is possible to produce an elegant looking experiment that completely fails to confirm or disprove anything.

(note- all language used will be used in the assumption that the reader has an idea of how said language is used scientifically)

2- his wording is extremely bad. The method itself is not limited, but it can only measure/ find what you are capable of measuring, if you see what I mean. Physics seems to me to have less of these problems compared to, say, biochemistry and the kind of associative epidemiological studies that Truthseeker is on about.

3- Because.

Wow.... only one person voted so far....

:shrug:
Possibly only one person thinks your options worth voting for. They are somewhat poorly worded.

Or to put it another way, the method is fine, but can be misapplied, or cannot be applied properly due to lack of appropriate technologies.

See for example historical measurements of CO2 concentrations. Many were carried out using perfectly good scientific methodology, but got inconsistent results, due to the technology being a bit too poor to do a good job.

Possibly only one person thinks your options worth voting for. They are somewhat poorly worded.
Apparently, you are th only person who thinks so. How are they poorly worded?

Or to put it another way, the method is fine, but can be misapplied,
You mean... on purpose?

or cannot be applied properly due to lack of appropriate technologies.
So... we lack appropriate technologies to test everything? :rolleyes:

See for example historical measurements of CO2 concentrations. Many were carried out using perfectly good scientific methodology, but got inconsistent results, due to the technology being a bit too poor to do a good job.
Wasn't that one of the options I presented? Limitations of knowledge? :rolleyes:

TS,

The problem seems to lie in a common misunderstanding of the Scientific Method (SM), to wit: the SM has nothing whatsoever to do with truth or certainty; it is an inductive methodology of verification.

What happens when what it verifies changes all the time? How is that useflul verification?

What happens when what it verifies changes all the time? How is that useflul verification?

Then that means that one has to change that which one is seeking to verify: an hypothesis.

What happens when what it verifies changes all the time? How is that useflul verification?

In addition to what Glaucon said - which was quite correct - it means you are getting ever closer to the truth. That's the whole purpose of the scientific method.

In addition to what Glaucon said - which was quite correct - it means you are getting ever closer to the truth. That's the whole purpose of the scientific method.

Umm no, the purpose of the scientific method is not to get closer to the "truth"; its merely to apply validated tools to empirical data for purposes of inference.

Umm no, the purpose of the scientific method is not to get closer to the "truth"; its merely to apply validated tools to empirical data for purposes of inference.

Indeed.
As i said above in my original post.

:-)

Indeed.
As i said above in my original post.

:-)

I got it. :bawl:

In addition to what Glaucon said - which was quite correct - it means you are getting ever closer to the truth. That's the whole purpose of the scientific method.
Yes, but a lot of people take it as absolute truth.

Yes, but a lot of people take it as absolute truth.

From whence we can draw 3 conclusions:

The problem lies not in the SM, but in the people.

A lot of people are wrong.

A lot of people believe in the idea of 'Truth'.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of truth. Without it, logic is useless. The problem is when people take an idea as truth when it shouldn't be. And, let's be frank here, the media often quotes researches as absolute truths, without taking into consideration any constraints, or methods or anything. That's because people just want everything chewed up. They want the summary of the summary. And, of course, the elite profits from that....

There's nothing wrong with the idea of truth. Without it, logic is useless. The problem is when people take an idea as truth when it shouldn't be. And, let's be frank here, the media often quotes researches as absolute truths, without taking into consideration any constraints, or methods or anything. That's because people just want everything chewed up. They want the summary of the summary. And, of course, the elite profits from that....

Science is not about truth. It is merely a statement of inference. The only conditions are the empiricism of the data and the validity of the tools. (And the reliability and reproducibility of the results)

Stop saying that! :D

Regardless. SM has its limitations...

There's nothing wrong with the idea of truth. Without it, logic is useless.
...


Incorrect.

Logically speaking, 'truth' is defined as satisfaction of validity.



...
The problem is when people take an idea as truth when it shouldn't be. And, let's be frank here, the media often quotes researches as absolute truths, without taking into consideration any constraints, or methods or anything. That's because people just want everything chewed up. They want the summary of the summary. And, of course, the elite profits from that....

I concur.

Again, it is people that are the problem, not a methodology.

Incorrect.

Logically speaking, 'truth' is defined as satisfaction of validity.
Look. A hypothesis is either proven to be true or false. That's it. And hypothesis are the very core of the SM. Without truth, there is no SM.

Look. A hypothesis is either proven to be true or false. That's it. And hypothesis are the very core of the SM. Without truth, there is no SM.

A hypothesis is not proven false, it is proven true or not true. There is a subtle difference.

A hypothesis is not proven false, it is proven true or not true. There is a subtle difference.

My thanks to you for this sam, you beat me to it.

:-)

A hypothesis is not proven false, it is proven true or not true. There is a subtle difference.
Yes, I agree.

That certainly does not null my point now, does it?

Yes, I agree.

That certainly does not null my point now, does it?

?

Your point being what now?

That 'truth' (however you opt to define it..) is somehow an element of SM?

Incorrect.

We're talking here about a method of induction; by definition it cannot include anything that can be categorized as 'true'.

You seem to be thinking of Sm as some sort of deductive methodology......

And even if that were the case (although it's strictly impossible..), then we would be required to begin from some a priori. And if that were the case, then we would (ultimately) simply be able to deduce all truth, right from there.

So when you try to prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis is NEVER proven true?

A hypothesis is not proven false, it is proven true or not true. There is a subtle difference. In science, hypotheses are either proven false or not proven false - that's the standard take,anyway.

To prove a hypothesis true, one would have to exhaustively reject all other relevant hypotheses. It is usually impossible to tell whether one has even discovered all other relevant hypotheses.

So when you try to prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis is NEVER proven true? Correct, in science.

Huuumm.... I think we were all wrong and iceaura is right.

So it is a big problem when the media talks about the results of a study as if it was an undisputable truth!

So... I should rephrase the thread to "LIMITATIONS of the SM"....?

For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?Because science never stops. We never assume that we've found the ultimate "truth." When more data, more people to do research, or more sophisticated methods are available, we keep reexamining old theories to make sure they still conform to new observations and don't need a little tweaking.

Second- or third-order corollaries of scientific theories may fall by the wayside, such as whether a particular chemical causes a particular reaction in a particular type of animal, as in your example. But the overall principles generally are not disproven, so much as shown to need a little refinement. The example I keep using in these discussions is Newtonian physics. We haven't had to throw it out since the discovery of relativity. It's perfectly valid for measuring and predicting the behavior of matter and energy at the temperatures and velocities 99.9999% of the human race will ever have to deal with if they remain on the surface of this planet. It only changes things at the limits of observation, i.e. subatomic particles, travel near the speed of light, or phenomena of cosmic magnitudes. Most human beings can remain blissfully ignorant of that with no harm done.1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range.2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods.You're misstating your premise. These are not limitations of the scientific method itself. These are limitations of the tools we have been able to develop, to date, to use in the application of the scientific method to understanding the universe.His wording is extremely bad. The method itself is not limited, but it can only measure/ find what you are capable of measuring, if you see what I mean. Physics seems to me to have less of these problems compared to, say, biochemistry and the kind of associative epidemiological studies that Truthseeker is on about.You're basically saying the same thing I did. Now he's heard it expressed two different ways.In addition to what Glaucon said - which was quite correct - it means you are getting ever closer to the truth. That's the whole purpose of the scientific method.Umm no, the purpose of the scientific method is not to get closer to the "truth"; its merely to apply validated tools to empirical data for purposes of inference.I'm not sure I agree with that, and even at best your point is a bit on the pedantic side. People want "the truth" about how the universe works, so they can use it to rationally plan their activities. What the scientific method gives them is "the truth" with a precision and accuracy range. To put it another way, it gives us "the truth" according to the definition of the U.S. legal system: "True beyond a reasonable doubt." We don't know the things we take for granted because they are told to us by scientists, with 100% certainty, but we have enough certainty to not harbor a "reasonable doubt" about their truth. That means that occasionally some scientific finding will be disproven, but on the whole we are immeasurably better off to let science guide the worldly aspects of our lives, than to do it by astrology, dream interpretation, or holy books that were written thousands of years ago by people who were barely out of the Stone Age.Yes, but a lot of people take it as absolute truth.I would not disabuse them of that unless they are highly educated. To explain standard deviations and acceptance criteria to the average layman is hopeless.Regardless. SM has its limitations...Absolutely not. The scientific method is surely the best method that can be invented to discover the workings of the universe. The limitations are in our tools, our abilities, and our measurements. As long as we continue to do our best to improve them, we are scientists. But even if we do not, the fault lies within us, not within the scientific method.So when you try to prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis is NEVER proven true?That depends on your discipline. In mathematics you're dealing with pure abstractions. When you prove that the square of a hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides, you have an absolute truth that will never be overturned. Period. In police work you're dealing with one crime, and it will turn out either that the butler did it or he did not. Period. In sociology and economics you're dealing with the behavior of large groups of people and just because they behave the way you predict throughout your lifetime and that of the next seven sociologists or economists, there's no guarantee that they won't start behaving differently, say when the earth's temperature increases by seven or eight degrees Fahrenheit, or when the world population stops increasing and starts decreasing. (Both of which are likely to happen within the next hundred years or so. :))

Science falls somewhere in between math and sociology. Scientific theories (or hypotheses) can be proven to be consistent with rather a large collection of data (unlike police work) and a rather well correlated collection of data (unlike sociology and economics). So we have a much higher confidence level in their validity. So high that we're willing to go outside the citadel and tell the common folk that we can't build a spacecraft that will reach the next star and return in a single lifetime... that dinosaurs and humans did not inhabit the earth at the same time... that marijuana smoke does not contain the carcinogens that tobacco smoke does. And not wake up every morning scrambling for the Discovery Channel to make sure we weren't proven wrong last night.

Yes, occasionally a hypothesis will be disproven, but it's not the fault of the scientific method. The whole purpose of science is find things out, and if new things we discover invalidate our previous hypotheses, we run to the lab with great enthusiasm, ready to sort things out and improve our science books.

That's the difference between us and the religionists. They will go out and commit genocide--or at least burn a lot of books--to keep that from happening.

Science is not about truth. It is merely a statement of inference. The only conditions are the empiricism of the data and the validity of the tools. (And the reliability and reproducibility of the results)
Interesting. This clever wordplay is so... clever.

I'm glad to learn that science is "merely" about inferences. Typical of a theist.

The word "truth" simply means that which we can verify to be accurate and "correct" given the tools we possess. Some "truths" are more certain than others.

"The earth is spheroid in shape" is absolutely true given the definitions of the words in that sentence.

Of course, to a mystic like you sam, "truth" or "ultimate truth" has some other meaning and can only be obtained explicitly without the application of reason (science).

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.

Interesting. This clever wordplay is so... clever.

I'm glad to learn that science is "merely" about inferences. Typical of a theist.

The word "truth" simply means that which we can verify to be accurate and "correct" given the tools we possess. Some "truths" are more certain than others.

"The earth is spheroid in shape" is absolutely true given the definitions of the words in that sentence.

Of course, to a mystic like you sam, "truth" or "ultimate truth" has some other meaning and can only be obtained explicitly without the application of reason (science).

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.


I did, I'm a working scientist; any truth in science, no matter how certain, exists only as long as the conditions that define it. It makes no difference to the process of science since there is no lie or truth in science, only the process and its results. The inferences are our own and are based on our assumptions about the hypothesis, its independent and dependent variables, the process we use as well as about the results obtained. Science is merely about the inference, since it not only drives the assumptions that follow, but in many cases, also the assumptions that lead to it. Any notions of accuracy or truth that ignore this are bias.

This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

Some scenarios:

1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range.

2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods.

3) Our statistical methods are insufficient to produce reliable results.

4) Other.

5) A combination of the above


I would think one of the main problems is that the use of statistical methods are insufficient, on their own, to produce a reliable result. One must create logical explanations if they want to create an accurate theory. For instance, if apple peel seems to really help, then you have to specify the components in the apple that produce such results AND not only test it with statistical methods, but also carefully research how those components interact with our bodies in different circumstances. Of course, the difficulty in this scenario would be in terms of time and money restrictions, as such pedantic practices would be extremely time consuming.

Anyways... any thoughts? :)

I am with 4) - the problem with the scientific method is that its foundation are the reserves of human perception and rationalization, which is very much prone to four things
1) imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2) tendency to make mistakes ... perceive lycopene as helpful in combating cancer
3) tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4) a cheating propensity --- our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc (I stand to make a packet from lycopene combating cancer)

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.
Fallacy.


:D

Interesting. This clever wordplay is so... clever. I'm glad to learn that science is "merely" about inferences. Typical of a theist. Of course, to a mystic like you sam, "truth" or "ultimate truth" has some other meaning and can only be obtained explicitly without the application of reason (science).I'm not the moderator of this forum and besides that I'm on the same side as you in the battle against the Forces of Darkness. But I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Sam. The argument is descending into semantics. Please remember that this is an international community. We don't all have the same background, the same context, the same set of understandings and assumptions. And especially not the same subtle meanings for words. Rather than criticize Sam for saying something that does not seem consistent with your own understanding of the universe, I think it would be far more in the spirit of science to simply ask her what she meant. Perhaps this would not only avoid a misunderstanding but spark an interesting and spirited discussion.All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I never appreciate my work--whether it's my casual writing here, my letters to the editor, the courses I teach, or even my bloody music--being used as justification for a flame war. I don't think it's Sam who owes anyone an apology.

I did, I'm a working scientist; any truth in science, no matter how certain, exists only as long as the conditions that define it. It makes no difference to the process of science since there is no lie or truth in science, only the process and its results. The inferences are our own and are based on our assumptions about the hypothesis, its independent and dependent variables, the process we use as well as about the results obtained. Science is merely about the inference, since it not only drives the assumptions that follow, but in many cases, also the assumptions that lead to it. Any notions of accuracy or truth that ignore this are bias.

In the spirit of fraggles last post...

How do you define truth? What does saying something is "true" mean to you?

Fallacy.


:D
Phallacy.
:D

In the spirit of fraggles last post...

How do you define truth? What does saying something is "true" mean to you?

That its not falsifiable.

I'm not the moderator of this forum and besides that I'm on the same side as you in the battle against the Forces of Darkness. But I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Sam. The argument is descending into semantics. Please remember that this is an international community. We don't all have the same background, the same context, the same set of understandings and assumptions. And especially not the same subtle meanings for words. Rather than criticize Sam for saying something that does not seem consistent with your own understanding of the universe, I think it would be far more in the spirit of science to simply ask her what she meant. Perhaps this would not only avoid a misunderstanding but spark an interesting and spirited discussion.I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I never appreciate my work--whether it's my casual writing here, my letters to the editor, the courses I teach, or even my bloody music--being used as justification for a flame war. I don't think it's Sam who owes anyone an apology.

While I completely sympathize with the content of this post, you are far too stodgy and restrictive for a forum who's main purpose is entertainment and consists of a multinational member base with a wide variety of reasons for posting here.

That its not falsifiable.
I see. Of course you do. God, of course, would then consist of truth.

I think that is not a definition of "truth" that many people would accept.

I see. Of course you do. God, of course, would then consist of truth.

I think that is not a definition of "truth" that many people would accept.

Of course True =! False is a rather radical definition of truth.:p

Of course True =! False is a rather radical definition of truth.:p
So. Science does not deal in things that are !False ?

So. Science does not deal in things that are !False ?

Of course not! :eek:

Science makes no judgments about certainty.

Haven't you ever read a scientific publication?

Of course not! :eek:

Science makes no judgments about certainty.

Haven't you ever read a scientific publication?

Of course. Science always makes judgements about certainty. Have you never heard of statistics? All data and analysis comes with error bars that indicate the degree of certainty of the information.

I fully accept that "truth" is provisional and comes with statistical provisos.

"The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.

"Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.

"The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.

Of course. Science always makes judgements about certainty. Have you never heard of statistics? All data and analysis comes with error bars that indicate the degree of certainty of the information.

I fully accept that "truth" is provisional and comes with statistical provisos.

"The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.

"Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.

"The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.

Provisional truth is an oxymoron, like being almost pregnant.

If its not falsifiable, it is not science.

Provisional truth is an oxymoron, like being almost pregnant.

If its not falsifiable, it is not science.
No. That is a mystical/theistic stance. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All of it is statistical. All truths are provisional as I have said.

I understand that if it's not falsifiable, it is not science. I never argued otherwise. But to say that science dosen't deal in varying degrees of truth (correctness, accuracy, ...?) is clearly wrong.

No. That is a mystical/theistic stance. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All of it is statistical. All truths are provisional as I have said.

I understand that if it's not falsifiable, it is not science. I never argued otherwise. But to say that science dosen't deal in varying degrees of truth (correctness, accuracy, ...?) is clearly wrong.

Science does not deal with truth because if it is not falsifiable it is not science.

Am I not clear?:confused:

Science does not deal with truth because if it is not falsifiable it is not science.

Am I not clear?:confused:

Did I not say that all "truth" is statistically provisional and is of course falsifiable?

Am I not clear???:confused:

Did I not say that all "truth" is statistically provisional and is of course falsifiable?

Am I not clear???:confused:

Then you are saying that Truth = ! False is wrong. so what you are saying is that there is no truth.:confused:

Then you are saying that Truth = ! False is wrong. so what you are saying is that there is no truth.:confused:

No. Let me be clear. I'm saying that your definition of True and False as absoultes is flawed. Truth = ! False is flawed. Truth = P(!False), P being a statistical probability, would be closer to reality.

No. Let me be clear. I'm saying that your definition of True and False as absoultes is flawed. Truth = ! False is flawed. Truth = P(!False), P being a statistical probability, would be closer to reality.

So what is the definition of false?

So what is the definition of false?

You'll be sorry you asked:



False = P(!True)



:D

You'll be sorry you asked:



False = P(!True)



:D

So if something is false, there is a probability that it could be true?:confused:

So what exactly is science dealing with?

So if something is false, there is a probability that it could be true?:confused:
Sure! You seem to think there is such a thing as absolute truth or falsity. Interesting.

So what exactly is science dealing with?
Likelyhoods, probabilities, refinement, shake well, repeat.

Hi Supes, long time no see.
If I may, I think I can see where both you and Sam are coming from. (Or maybe not)

"The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.
It's spherical or not. The degree of sphericity is subject to variation. When is sphere not a sphere.

"Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.
Black holes exist or they do not. Our knowledge of this truth is uncertain.

"The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.
Again, it does or it does not, our certainty of this is less than 100%.

Sam, yes or no?
Supes, yes or no?

Sure! You seem to think there is such a thing as absolute truth or falsity. Interesting.


Likelyhoods, probabilities, refinement, shake well, repeat.

So science deals in assumptions, probabilities and inferences, not truth or falsehood. Which is what I said.:shrug:

Hi Supes, long time no see.
If I may, I think I can see where both you and Sam are coming from. (Or maybe not)


It's spherical or not. The degree of sphericity is subject to variation. When is sphere not a sphere.


Black holes exist or they do not. Our knowledge of this truth is uncertain.


Again, it does or it does not, our certainty of this is less than 100%.

Sam, yes or no?
Supes, yes or no?


You have to define truth first.:)

IS or IS NOT?

IS or IS NOT?

Thats what I thought.

The philosophical meaning of the word 'Satya' is "unchangeable", "that which has no distortion", "that which is beyond distinctions of time, space, and person", "that which pervades the universe in all its constancy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya

So science deals in assumptions, probabilities and inferences, not truth or falsehood. Which is what I said.:shrug:

Not quite. You are missing the fact that science needs to come to at least provisional conclusions about a given thing, otherwise there would never be a growing foundation of results to build on. Those conclusions are TRUE or FALSE based on probabilities and inferences.

Science must deal in the level of confidence or certainty of things, just like everyone else.

Not quite. You are missing the fact that science needs to come to at least provisional conclusions about a given thing, otherwise there would never be a growing foundation of results to build on. Those conclusions are TRUE or FALSE based on probabilities and inferences.

Science must deal in the level of confidence or certainty of things, just like everyone else.

you're still talking about assumptions leading from inferences and inferences based on those assumptions.:bugeye:

This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

Some scenarios:

1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range.

2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods.

3) Our statistical methods are insufficient to produce reliable results.

4) Other.

5) A combination of the above


I would think one of the main problems is that the use of statistical methods are insufficient, on their own, to produce a reliable result. One must create logical explanations if they want to create an accurate theory. For instance, if apple peel seems to really help, then you have to specify the components in the apple that produce such results AND not only test it with statistical methods, but also carefully research how those components interact with our bodies in different circumstances. Of course, the difficulty in this scenario would be in terms of time and money restrictions, as such pedantic practices would be extremely time consuming.

Anyways... any thoughts? :)

Clinical trials, no matter how painstakingly conducted, still isolate subjects into a controlled study. An isolated study, though informative, cannot field every situation, just as you posit regarding statistical method.
However, I think that one of the more common flaws in clinical research is that they are treating a symptom more than they are a condition and vise versa. In this light, a great many factors can come into play, including incidences where a condition is detected and treated as a symptom, and where a symptom is a detected and treated as a condition.

Inaccurate correlations occur way too often in statistical research, resulting in confusion as well as adverse events in a patient's or subject's health.

Hi Supes, long time no see.
If I may, I think I can see where both you and Sam are coming from. (Or maybe not)


It's spherical or not. The degree of sphericity is subject to variation. When is sphere not a sphere.


Black holes exist or they do not. Our knowledge of this truth is uncertain.


Again, it does or it does not, our certainty of this is less than 100%.

Sam, yes or no?
Supes, yes or no?
Hey Oli.

Yes, you are correct. These are binary propositions, yes? Clearly science deals with the truth or falsity of binary propositions.

Crap. Now I'm not sure what I was getting at...

you're still talking about assumptions leading from inferences and inferences based on those assumptions.:bugeye:
No!

I think we just settled the issue of whether science deals in truth or falsity above. A scientist will tell you that it is absolutely true that the earth is spherical.

I suggest we agree that science accepts the truth or falsity of demonstrable binary propositions, and assigns a degree of certainty to everything else.

Yes?

No!

I think we just settled the issue of whether science deals in truth or falsity above. A scientist will tell you that it is absolutely true that the earth is spherical.

I suggest we agree that science accepts the truth or falsity of demonstrable binary propositions, and assigns a degree of certainty to everything else.

Yes?
Is that a true no/yes? or a true = P(!F) no/yes?

Is that a true yes? or a true = P(!F) yes?

It's a query regarding the degree of certainty you would assign to the preceding proposition.

:cool: :m:

I should have gone to bed. :D

I know what you both mean I think, and I can't find the words.

What isn't a binary proposition?
Electrons exist or they do not.
Our knowledge of their behaviour/ properties is subject to statistical uncertainty.
Erm. Do they exist, or are they only a way we have of explaining things?

I may go to bed. And not sleep.

More coffee, first.

More coffee, first.

Sounds good, brb.

It's a query regarding the degree of certainty you would assign to the preceding proposition.

:cool: :m:

At what level of significance?:cool:

I should have gone to bed. :D

I know what you both mean I think, and I can't find the words.

What isn't a binary proposition?



Hmmm...

Maybe an example.

Quantum mechanics is probably the most wildly successful theory in human history. It predicts the behavior of everything but gravity. So you could say that QM is a true representation of nature. But 100% true? Could there be a better, more refined truth?

Newtonian mechanics is true. Except in high gravity or at high relative speeds. Then it's superseeded by general or special relativity.

I will stick to my "truth is provisional" idea regarding such non-binary questions.

At what level of significance?:cool:

<< S:0.0001766

:rolleyes:

<< S:0.0001766

:rolleyes:

Well at p=1 I would have to agree with you.:D

Well at p=1 I would have to agree with you.:D

I think we've passed the 6 sigma mark for quality of discussion parameters.

KNow what? I've got a goddamned frickin' splitting headache. I'm taking drugs and going to bed.

g'nite.

KNow what? I've got a goddamned frickin' splitting headache. I'm taking drugs and going to bed.

g'nite.

k, gnite supe.

Newtonian mechanics is true. Except in high gravity or at high relative speeds. Then it's superseeded by general or special relativity.

This'll do, it applies to QM as well.

So Newton isn't true, it's a partial description. It's good enough for everyday use, but not the truth.

Just as "the best way to get from my home to work is the number 9 bus".
Which doesn't run on Sundays, but I don't go to work on Sundays.

I think. I maybe lost track about three pages back.

Night Supe.

Phallacy.
:D
Oh! You like phalic things, don't you? :D

This'll do, it applies to QM as well.

So Newton isn't true, it's a partial description. It's good enough for everyday use, but not the truth.

So you see, this is where we have an issue. Regarding math and binary propopositions of existence there is absolute truth and falsity. A thing exists or it does not. This is the truth or falsity of logical necessity. A thing cannot 98% exist (unless maybe in the QM world?) by sheer definition. Let's call this "quantitative" truth. 1 or 0. No shades of gray.

But the truth of newtonian mechanics, or relativity, or QM as THE TRUE description/explanation of nature is "qualitative". I would say that you can never assign a 1 or 0 to the proposition that QM is the truth of reality. In fact, QM states that the truth can never be obtained inasmuch as knowing, for sure, the ultimate position/momentum state of a particle. But is this really true??? :D

Oh! You like phalic things, don't you? :D
Only my own buddy. Only my own. :p

This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?



There are litteraly shed loads of chemicals availiable in the market which are supposed to fight cancer, none work, but give people false hope.

My mother worked for a company which developed anti cancer drugs in the UK, the chemicals made were totally experimental but the company marketed each one as a cure for cancer, She was the head bioinformatician in the company where everyone else was a pharmacist or epedemiologist, and after analysing every singe one of the chemicals and frequently telling management that these chemicals are in the wrong application, and had adverse effects, the management continued its manufacture. My mother quit after this came out., as selling cancer patients drugs under the pretext of cure, while only making profit is fundamentaly wrong.

Corporation needs to be taken out of science, for science to do it's job freely,

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.

There is no problem with the scientific method. The only inconsistencies that occur are through human interpretation of the method. Although the scientific method was created by man, it was created by many men and through a trial and error process spanning the entire existence of humanity, maybe even further than that. The scientific method is the cumulative work of humans trying to figure out the most accurate and efficient process to gather predictive information.

The problem is that science has been separated from every other subject when, in reality, the methods of science are connected to all things that we do and/or know. Science, instead, should not be called science but rather should be the backbone of everything we are interested in, even religion. It is simply the best method of investigation that we've come up with in our entire existence so far. I believe it will remain so, no matter what it is called, simply because its nature calls for it to be constantly examined and modified for greater accuracy.

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.

Only if you think therapeutic. In reality, both deficiency and excess of nutrients are harmful to the system. Also there may be other mitigating factors missing in the model.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/23/1743

The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) tested the effect of daily {beta}-carotene (30 mg) and retinyl palmitate (25 000 IU) on the incidence of lung cancer, other cancers, and death in 18 314 participants who were at high risk for lung cancer because of a history of smoking or asbestos exposure. CARET was stopped ahead of schedule in January 1996 because participants who were randomly assigned to receive the active intervention were found to have a 28% increase in incidence of lung cancer, a 17% increase in incidence of death and a higher rate of cardiovascular disease mortality compared with participants in the placebo group.

Only if you think therapeutic. In reality, both deficiency and excess of nutrients are harmful to the system. Also there may be other mitigating factors missing in the model

Not to any majour effect. Unbalanced nutrient intake is common, and the over use of the radical chemical compounds in foods is also very rare, as people don't eat bags of apples or fresh tomatoes every day.

Current health problems are based on cooking oil, as people eat large quantities of fried food, chocolate, chips. etc.

Experiments on mice in the cancer research centre of the UK in Dundee, showed extensive damage to mice who were kept on a diet containing cooking oil, most died in half the time compare to the healthy mice. These were cancer, liver failure, lung problems, immune problems

Eating too many apples or tomatoes is'nt to blame, we've had exposure to fruit through out our evolution, and most likely have a tolerance to radical bahaviour caused by the compounds they may contain. Oils, extract and such are new, and we have an array of health problems caused by them

Not to any majour effect. Unbalanced nutrient intake is common, and the over use of the radical chemical compounds in foods is also very rare, as people don't eat bags of apples or fresh tomatoes every day.

Current health problems are based on cooking oil, as people eat large quantities of fried food, chocolate, chips. etc.

Experiments on mice in the cancer research centre of the UK in Dundee, showed extensive damage to mice who were kept on a diet containing cooking oil, most died in half the time compare to the healthy mice. These were cancer, liver failure, lung problems, immune problems

Eating too many apples or tomatoes is'nt to blame, we've had exposure to fruit through out our evolution, and most likely have a tolerance to radical bahaviour caused by the compounds they may contain. Oils, extract and such are new, and we have an array of health problems caused by them

And what did I say different?:)

Nutrition is preventative (or palliative) while pharmacology is therapeutic.

I disagreed to the comparison of over use of Lycopene and over use of nutrients. Over use of lycopene can only exist pharmocologically.

Overuse of nutrients is linked to other problems, it is'nt considered cancerogenic, like certain saturated fats and oxidants may be.

Other than that we're on the same page.

I disagreed to the comparison of over use of Lycopene and over use of nutrients. Over use of lycopene can only exist pharmocologically.

Overuse of nutrients is linked to other problems, it is'nt considered cancerogenic, like certain saturated fats and oxidants may be.

Other than that we're on the same page.

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

It tastes good? :shrug:

Corporation needs to be taken out of science, for science to do it's job freely
Absolutely. Or strict regulation.

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.
I suppose if a bit of a chemical can kill off a few cancer cells, then, in the right quantities it could treat cancer...

:shrug:

Certainly worth a shot...

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

My bad, Put it this way, There are certain chemicals whos function is considered
cancerogenic. Saturated fats in turn are, and oxidants contained in foods also are. The reason these are considered a threat are their extensive use in everything, Saturated fats in oils, and things like creatine in red meats. But food
specific substances, whos intake is low on average can be dismissed, one bacause it's rare and secondly because it dos'nt cause cancer, but limits the abillity to control it should it occur. Esspecially ones with such low concentration in the specific food. A person eating apples by the kilo, should rather worry about iron poisoning then the substances which limit his ability to control mutating cells when they occur.

My bad, Put it this way, There are certain chemicals whos function is considered
cancerogenic. Saturated fats in turn are, and oxidants contained in foods also are. The reason these are considered a threat are their extensive use in everything, Saturated fats in oils, and things like creatine in red meats. But food
specific substances, whos intake is low on average can be dismissed, one bacause it's rare and secondly because it dos'nt cause cancer, but limits the abillity to control it should it occur. Esspecially ones with such low concentration in the specific food. A person eating apples by the kilo, should rather worry about iron poisoning then the substances which limit his ability to control mutating cells when they occur.

You're still looking at nutrients as pharmacological. Chronic diseases are the cumulative result of long term abuse, whether deficiency of micronutrients, imbalance or od'ing on macronutrients.

Nutrients follow a U shaped curve in terms of effects and being of low concentration does not mean it is less damaging, the low concentrations themselves may be the primary cause of the damage!

While I completely sympathize with the content of this post, you are far too stodgy and restrictive for a forum who's main purpose is entertainment and consists of a multinational member base with a wide variety of reasons for posting here.I don't know... since you backed off and resumed treating this discussion as a scientific one, it has certainly blossomed. As for our main purpose being entertainment, I could not disagree more. As I have stated on the "SciForums Policy" thread, I believe our main purpose is to provide a place for people of science and people with an interest in science to gather without having to constantly beat back the Forces of Darkness. Certainly entertainment, advice, companionship and sheer foolishness are parts of that, but the essence is to host discussions of a scientific nature. Otherwise we'd be just another chat room full of trolls and horny teenagers.Corporation needs to be taken out of science, for science to do it's job freely.I agree with you in spirit. As a libertarian I see the corporation as having been invented by governments to fill the role of the vanishing aristocracy: to be larger than life and so entrusted with government's dirty work (corporations cannot be effectively punished, much less beheaded) and to distract our attention from the even more heinous deeds of the king and queen. Yet the very ability of the corporation to create the resource of vast quantities of surplus wealth--capital--makes it arguably the engine that made possible the progress and prosperity of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Era. The nature of wealth is changing; the most valuable resource of the Post-Industrial Era is data, which is cheap and clean to produce and difficult to hoard. The capitalism of Smith, Keynes and Friedman, and specifically the corporation, may be anachronisms.

You're still looking at nutrients as pharmacological. Chronic diseases are the cumulative result of long term abuse, whether deficiency of micronutrients, imbalance or od'ing on macronutrients.

Nutrients follow a U shaped curve in terms of effects and being of low concentration does not mean it is less damaging, the low concentrations themselves may be the primary cause of the damage!

Am not. :p

Low concentrations in terms of cancer are not the culprit. Excess is.

Am not. :p

Low concentrations in terms of cancer are not the culprit. Excess is.

So antioxidant deficiency does not lead to cancer?;)

I agree with you in spirit. As a libertarian I see the corporation as having been invented by governments to fill the role of the vanishing aristocracy: to be larger than life and so entrusted with government's dirty work (corporations cannot be effectively punished, much less beheaded) and to distract our attention from the even more heinous deeds of the king and queen. Yet the very ability of the corporation to create the resource of vast quantities of surplus wealth--capital--makes it arguably the engine that made possible the progress

An alternative should be found which stops scientific research being abandoned in favour of profit. I agree that the corporation allowed the boom, but it's different from the corruption seen in the market today.

So antioxidant deficiency does not lead to cancer?;)


no. in no way. ;)

It increases the risk, if the person subjects himself to a high protein diet maybe.

But a defficiency in anti oxidants does not on it's own lead to cancer.

The effects of anti oxidants is limited anyway, when the damage is dealt to a cell membrane it's already there. Mitigating the effects by jamming yourself full of cranberries, lowers the risk.... but if you fail to do so you won't give yourself cancer. :p

no. in no way. ;)

It increases the risk, if the person subjects himself to a high protein diet maybe.

But a defficiency in anti oxidants does not on it's own lead to cancer.

uh-huh, you're ignoring the role of inflammation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15182851&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12667700&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=813824

I like you, you read pub med.

While the role of anti-oxidants is important in countering damage done to cells already prone to mutation, the "risk" of mutation itself is cause by other factors, such as genetics and exposure to cancerogenics, like ON.

Im going to sleep, to mull over the article.

I like you, you read pub med.

While the role of anti-oxidants is important in countering damage done to cells already prone to mutation, the "risk" of mutation itself is cause by other factors, such as genetics and exposure to cancerogenics, like ON.

Im going to sleep, to mull over the article.

See edit. :)

An alternative should be found which stops scientific research being abandoned in favour of profit. I agree that the corporation allowed the boom, but it's different from the corruption seen in the market today.Research is very expensive, the payoff is distant, and every project has a very high risk of delivering nothing useful. In other words, it's capital-intensive. This is the very sort of endeavor for which corporations are needed, perhaps even in the post-industrial era.

The only viable alternative to corporate research is government research. Governments are as corrupt and more inefficient than corporations, and (at least in the USA) they tend to attract people who can't get real jobs. That would be a change for the worse. We have to wait for some new kind of entity to evolve in the post-industrial world, to take over from the corporation. (And if we're lucky, also from government. :))

In that case we need a new world-wide watchdog, which prohibits ineffective drugs and such from being allowed. Maybe one which also controls piracy, so companies can't add vitanic C to aspirin and call it a new substance.

In that case we need a new world-wide watchdog, which prohibits ineffective drugs and such from being allowed. Maybe one which also controls piracy, so companies can't add vitamin C to aspirin and call it a new substance.We need an educated populace, "the cornerstone of democracy." It's a losing battle to protect people from their own foolishness. With the current fashion in America of knowing absolutely no science and giving respect and votes to people who don't "believe" in it, it's unlikely that any agency formed as the end result of a democratic consensus is going to solve the problem. We need to do something about the miserable educational system.

Research is very expensive, the payoff is distant, and every project has a very high risk of delivering nothing useful. In other words, it's capital-intensive. This is the very sort of endeavor for which corporations are needed, perhaps even in the post-industrial era.

The only viable alternative to corporate research is government research. Governments are as corrupt and more inefficient than corporations, and (at least in the USA) they tend to attract people who can't get real jobs. That would be a change for the worse. We have to wait for some new kind of entity to evolve in the post-industrial world, to take over from the corporation. (And if we're lucky, also from government. :))
Huuuuuuuuuummmm......

*runs to the drawing board*

:p

That's what I realized two years ago....:o

Frm sam's http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=813824:

Se is an unusual trace element in having its own codon in mRNA that specifies its insertion into selenoproteins as selenocysteine (SeCys), by means of a mechanism requiring a large SeCys-insertion complex. This exacting insertion machinery for selenoprotein production has implications for the Se requirements for cancer prevention. If Se may protect against cancer, an adequate intake of Se is desirable. However, the level of intake in Europe and some parts of the world is not adequate for full expression of protective selenoproteins. The evidence for Se as a cancer preventive agent includes that from geographic, animal, prospective and intervention studies. Newly-published prospective studies on oesophageal, gastric-cardia and lung cancer have reinforced previous evidence, which is particularly strong for prostate cancer.
Se also helps regulate hormonal imbalances. Really good for women with endometriosis... :)

The only viable alternative to corporate research is government research.
Yup. It's worked pretty well here in the UK. Still does, although much of the energy in the system has been captured by corporations.

The key point as usual is getting the energy to someone who is qualified and capable of using it most effectively. However you have to make decisions on this based upon limited information, and the most obvious path in science is not always the most effective.


Governments are as corrupt and more inefficient than corporations,
Not always. The biggest problem right now is that corporations and gvts have or are merged in ways which Rockefeller barely dreamt of. It also depends what sort of efficiency you are after. Gvt work often ends up dealing with human "efficiences", whereas corporations can chase after production efficiencies and ignore the societal side of things.


and (at least in the USA) they tend to attract people who can't get real jobs. That would be a change for the worse. We have to wait for some new kind of entity to evolve in the post-industrial world, to take over from the corporation. (And if we're lucky, also from government. :))
Here in the UK everything attracts people who can't get real jobs. Corporations are full of such people. Many are accountants...

As for a new entity, I'm sure that some rather interesting structures will evolve, but I hold no hope at all of them being able to take over from corporations and do R and D better.
Unless of course we have my ideal comunist revolution....