The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?

[axocanth]

But seriously folks . . .

And sort of a strawman, given how few take the "The" in TSM seriously.

And stop saying I believe in TSM - I've tried to fix this misapprehension several times. I believe in the values of science - as a meandering river, not a fixed canal. Does this help clarify? Not a method, but a stance or perspective. (just as the meandering Missouri reliably gets me to St Louis, the science stance reliably gets me to better approximations of nature)

Well, you're gonna have to work with me here, as they say, for I'm having great difficulty making head or tail of how the . . . meanderings of James and yourself relate to "The Scientific Method".

Let's try this. First the following question is posed . . .


"I was brought up to believe there is such a thing as The Scientific Method. I see it in science textbooks, and I remember being told about it in school. I'm told that it consists of several steps (observe, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, etc.). Its existence is explicitly confirmed by James. See post 255, for example, where he repeatedly speaks of "The Scientific Method". He goes on in the same post to tell us "The scientific method is often called a hypothetico-deductive method. To call this "not logical or methodical" is bizarre, if you ask me." He doesn't like it, though, when I attribute the view to him that TSM just is hypothetico-deductivism. It's a straw man I erected, he complains. Shortly thereafter in post 257 he presents a general method for "constructing" theories (not only scientific theories). The 10 steps he presents, however, go far beyond simply constructing theories to include their subsequent testing as well. It's hard to make sense of all this.

Question: So, is there, or is there not, such a thing as The Scientific Method?"



And your multiple choice answers, Mr Vat:

(a) There is no such thing as The Scientific Method. You are quite right to deny its existence. FFS, how many times do I have to tell you to stop saying "I believe in TSM". James is wrong to affirm its existence . . . even though I've been 'liking' his posts and objecting to yours. Scientists do, however, have certain common values, a common stance or perspective.

(b) There is such a thing as The Scientific Method. It does not refer to a method at all, though, or even a plurality thereof. It's something of a misnomer. It refers instead to certain values, a common stance or perspective shared by all scientists.

(c) Neither of the above. It is not true that there "There is such a thing as TSM", and it is not true that "There is no such thing as TSM". Um, please elaborate.

 

[axocanth]

Everyone has biases. Scientists identify them and try to work against them, so they can do science that is not affected by those biases. Most ID avocates identify those biases and then work towards supporting them with science, even if the science must be mangled and distorted to make that work. I see that as a significant difference.

This isn't just true in science. Interviewers have biases too - and they must identify them and work against them if they want to hire the best people for the job, and not just the people that make them the most comfortable. Interviewers who claim to not have biases are in general poor interviewers, because they still (of course) have them and do not work against them.

But by far the worst interviewers are the interviewers who have biases and actively support them - by, for example, not hiring black people because they "know for a fact they are less intelligent."

Would it be reasonable to encapsulate your above remarks thus?

* ID advocates are biased. They are biased towards theistic explanations, and biased against strict materialism and strict naturalistic explanations,

* Scientists are as unbiased as they can possibly be, striving to identify and eliminate all possible sources of bias as they become aware of them.

Sound fair?


Richard Lewontin again . . .

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."


I think it might be reasonable to encapsulate Lewontin's view thus:

* (Contemporary) science is hugely biased. Science invariably goes with materialistic explanations -- no matter how preposterous -- over non-materialistic explanations. (Seen the latest cloud-cuckoo cutting-edge physical theories? But God? Pfft, don't be silly!"). This grotesque bias is a result of metaphysical commitments. Scientists are perfectly aware of this bias but perpetuate it nonetheless. Scientists will go to any lengths -- no matter how absurd they may appear -- to keep that Divine Foot out the door. Anything reeking of theism simply will not be entertained.


Do you think I'm summarizing Lewontin fairly? I'd say he's spot on the mark!

Evidently you don't think so. Why not?

 

[billvon]

Would it be reasonable to encapsulate your above remarks thus?

* ID advocates are biased. They are biased towards theistic explanations, and biased against strict materialism and strict naturalistic explanations,

* Scientists are as unbiased as they can possibly be, striving to identify and eliminate all possible sources of bias as they become aware of them.

Sound fair?

Nope. EVERYONE is biased to some degree or another. Better scientists overcome those biases. Lesser scientists are unaware of their biases, and thus they can affect their work. And some even lean on those biases and insert them into the work they are doing, in order to validate them. These are poor scientists.

"create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."

This is true. Quantum mechanics is _completely_ counter-intuitive, because our intuitions evolved on a scale that cannot be affected by quantum mechanics. Thus our basic intuitions simply don't work. And most forms of science mystify the uninitiated (i.e. those ignorant of the fundamentals of science.)

Science invariably goes with materialistic explanations -- no matter how preposterous -- over non-materialistic explanations.

Yes. Because if any real evidence of God was discovered - a force that can be explained no other way - then it would become materialistic (i.e. it would exist.) Thus there is no conflict between science and God if there is truly a God that can affect us.

And yes, some parts of science seem preposterous. Something that is both a particle AND a wave? Something that takes two paths at the same time? Preposterous! But real, and provable.

Anything reeking of theism simply will not be entertained.

Of course it will be - if there is proof. That's how science works. Not on what you believe, but on what you can prove.

 

[axocanth]

Yes. Because if any real evidence of God was discovered - a force that can be explained no other way - then it would become materialistic (i.e. it would exist.) Thus there is no conflict between science and God if there is truly a God that can affect us.

Uh oh, this again. To what standard or criteria of evidence are you appealing? Or should your remarks above be understood as "In my opinion there is no evidence of God"?

And yes, some parts of science seem preposterous. Something that is both a particle AND a wave? Something that takes two paths at the same time? Preposterous! But real, and provable.

Of course it [anything reeking of theism] will be [entertained] - if there is proof. That's how science works. Not on what you believe, but on what you can prove.

"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions"

- Albert Einstein


Do you disagree with Einstein? If so, can you tell us how scientific theories are proven? And if not, why is theism being held to a higher standard than science?

 

[axocanth]

And yes, some parts of science seem preposterous. Something that is both a particle AND a wave? Something that takes two paths at the same time? Preposterous! But real, and provable.

Newton had a corpuscular theory of light, i.e. light consists of particles and not waves. Was this theory proven?

His corpuscular theory later came into conflict with wave theories of light, which held that light is a wave of one kind or another, not corpuscles at all. Were these wave theories proven?

What about the latest both-a-wave-and-a-particle theory (as you characterize it)? Has that been proven too?

 

[billvon]

Uh oh, this again. To what standard or criteria of evidence are you appealing? Or should your remarks above be understood as "In my opinion there is no evidence of God"?

There is no material evidence of God. Many people have opinions about God. Opinions are not actual evidence. Every single actual test run has found no evidence for God. ("Actual test" meaning an actual, measurable trial of something.)

"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions"
Do you disagree with Einstein?

Nope.

What about the latest both-a-wave-and-a-particle theory (as you characterize it)? Has that been proven too?

I have proposed no theory. I stated that photons sometimes behave as particles, and sometimes behave as waves. This is a fact that has been demonstrated thousands of times.

You can make up additional theories about that if you like - then test them. Let us know how it goes.

 

[axocanth]

There is no material evidence of God. Many people have opinions about God. Opinions are not actual evidence. Every single actual test run has found no evidence for God. ("Actual test" meaning an actual, measurable trial of something.)

Um, this all has that awful "Let's make up whatever we can to try and wriggle out of this" feeling to it.

After exchemist made a similar bald assertion (in post 273) I invited him to address the following question (post 274):

"Just to show that this is not just some ex cathedra dogmatic bald assertion on your part, how about you explain to our more suspicious readers what exactly it takes for a given observation O to support a given theory T, and how no observation whatsoever satisfies these criteria in the case of ID [or God] theory. Ok?"

He declined to do so. Would you like to try?

I have proposed no theory. I stated that photons sometimes behave as particles, and sometimes behave as waves. This is a fact that has been demonstrated thousands of times.

You mean photons are not theoretical postulates? Like lemurs and cassowaries perhaps, there's nothing theoretical about them? You can see photons behaving certain ways, just as we can see Louise (the non-theoretical kitten) absquatulate with TheVat's slippers? Both are observable facts?

 

[billvon]

Um, this all has that awful "Let's make up whatever we can to try and wriggle out of this" feeling to it.

Sorry if you're missing it.

You mean photons are not theoretical postulates?

Nope. They actually exist. Feel free to create your own theories about them - then do the work to prove them correct or incorrect.

 

[axocanth]

Nope. They [=photons] actually exist.

What makes you so sure? Can you see them?

 

[axocanth]

Do you intend to address my question?

"Just to show that this is not just some ex cathedra dogmatic bald assertion on your part, how about you explain to our more suspicious readers what exactly it takes for a given observation O to support a given theory T, and how no observation whatsoever satisfies these criteria in the case of ID [or God] theory. Ok?"

 

[axocanth]

First hit I found on google . . .

"Photons do not exist, according to Geoff Jones of the University of Sussex. Jones believes that it is ‘wrong, and unnecessary’ to describe light in terms of small, localised particles. If he is right, the quantum world is less mysterious than physicists would have us believe."

Science: Do photons really exist?

Photons do not exist, according to Geoff Jones of the University of Sussex. Jones believes that it is 'wrong, and unnecessary' to describe light in terms of small, localised particles. If he is right, the quantum world is less mysterious than physicists would have us believe. Jones has used his...

www.newscientist.com

This obviously contrasts starkly with your own view, viz., Photons exist, they are not theoretical postulates, their existence is proven, there is no possibility that you could be mistaken, never mind the supposed fallibility of science, and that's that!

Any additional comments?

 

[axocanth]

Nope. They [photons] actually exist. Feel free to create your own theories about them - then do the work to prove them correct or incorrect.

How on earth could I do that? Einstein already told us that scientific theories cannot be proven, and you told us you don't disagree with him (post 346).

 

[axocanth]

You seem to be wrestling with the semantics more than is needed here. (much as Louise wrestles with shoes, gloves, and balled up paper) And sort of a strawman, given how few take the "The" in TSM seriously. You're also at risk of what I would call a demarcation fallacy. [ . . . ] If "method" chaps your ass, imposes a painful corset on thinking, then either discard it or deem it a loosey-goosey term of "how we find ways to induce nature to show us her knickers." And stop saying I believe in TSM - I've tried to fix this misapprehension several times. I believe in the values of science - as a meandering river, not a fixed canal. Does this help clarify? Not a method, but a stance or perspective. (just as the meandering Missouri reliably gets me to St Louis, the science stance reliably gets me to better approximations of nature)

After delving into the history of science to see whether or not scientists actually follow the various and divergent rules that every Tom, Dick, and Harry insist constitute a vital part of The Scientific Method (TSM), philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend returned in the 1970s with the conclusion -- somewhat scandalous at the time -- that the only discernable rule common to science is: Anything goes! Anarchy!

Having nothing better to do, and no kitten to play with, I just spent some time making use of the site's wonderful search engine to see what other members have been saying about TSM in recent years. Interesting reading indeed!

I also return with a Feyerabendian sense of anarchy. All one can really say is, at least on this site, The Scientific Method -- not unlike God -- is many things to many people! Indeed it strains credulity to suggest that they are all talking about the same thing at all! -- something that Paul Feyerabend and myself would heartily endorse, for the simple reason that they're not talking about the same thing! Some versions smell of inductivism, some of Popperian conjectures and refutations, some of explanatory inference, others an incoherent mish-mash picking and choosing inconsistent elements from all over the place -- something for all the family really.

There are certain vague generalizations that can be made, though, subject to exceptions of course, e.g.

* This is indeed a method, not a set of values, a stance, or a perspective à la TheVat above.

* It is singular (method, not methods)

* The "the" in TSM is taken very seriously (see TheVat at top again)

* Wild divergence on what it is notwithstanding, if the slightest skepticism about its reality exists in the minds of our regular posters here, I didn't detect any.


Look for yourself!


Believe it or not, however, I'm actually going to return to the original topic of the thread, such are the wonders of serendipitous discovery. In the OP I told readers that science educators frequently tell us that the key difference between a hypothesis and a theory in scientific usage is degree of confirmation. When a hypothesis attains a certain level of confirmation, the story continues, a name change occurs whereby -- in a process of elevation or upgrading -- what was previously referred to as a "hypothesis" is thereafter referred to as a "theory".

The reaction from readers wasn't encouraging. To paraphrase David Hume, my STOT critique fell stillborn from the press, the general consensus being that I'd just made it up, load of bollocks, nothing to see here, folks (e.g. see post #4).

But a reminder first from the OP . . .

"It's not just a theory, you idiot! The word theory in science has a very different meaning from everyday usage. It's not like the theories of car mechanics or policemen, say, which are really just a guess. Indeed, such everyday theories are what we would call a hypothesis in science. Every theory in science begins life as hypothesis, and is referred to as such by all concerned. Subsequently, if a hypothesis has been subjected to rigorous testing, and passed these tests, thus now enjoys a high degree of confirmation and is widely accepted, it is upgraded or elevated to theory status, and is referred to as such by all concerned. A scientific theory takes us beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution is just a theory in the same sense that germs or gravity are just a theory."

Now compare with what JamesR says (emphasis added) . . .

Now you're sounding like you don't understand the scientific method.

We want to explain set of facts (or observations) F. So, we propose hypothesis H, which we think can account for facts F, and more besides. To test hypothesis H, we propose new experiments E, whose results are not known in advance. We use hypothesis H to make predictions P about what the results of E will be, if H is correct. We then conduct experiments E and compare the results R to the predictions P. If R and P all match, then we take that as evidence in support of the truth of H.

Over time, after lots of different Es have been done, hypothesis H may gain the status of a well-confirmed scientific theory T.

- "Relativity and simple algebra II", post 205

One thing worth noting, though, is that atheism is consistent with - true to - the scientific method, in a way that theism is not. The scientific method says start with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then see whether the evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis. Provisionally accept that the hypothesis might be true if the balance of evidence tends to favour it. If the evidence is strong, you might even start to call it a theory. But always keep an eye out for new disconfirming evidence, and keep considering alternatives that might explain things better than current theories. Implicit in all this is that you don't accept a hypothesis unless there's positive evidence in its favour. Also, there is the underlying assumption that we look for evidence in nature, and we do not invoke supernatural causes to explain things in an ad hoc manner.

- "Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke", post 613


This, then, is supposed to be what typically -- perhaps even always -- happens in science, maybe even part of The Scientific Method itself. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting patiently for a single example of such a phenomenon, such an "elevation" or "name change" occurring, to be adduced.

Show me twenty examples, say, and I'll shut up.

 

[parmalee]

Quantum mechanics is _completely_ counter-intuitive, because our intuitions evolved on a scale that cannot be affected by quantum mechanics. Thus our basic intuitions simply don't work.

I'm not sure that agree with either one of those remarks. With the first, it's the "completely" I take issue with--I dunno, maybe if you had said "largely" instead. But the second:

"because our intuitions evolved on a scale that cannot be affected by quantum mechanics."

Wasn't there a quote from someone earlier which posited a "wolf and hawk" distinction? Kind of a reframing of the forest and the trees, as I took it, or even a macro and micro distinction. Out of curiosity, would you agree that QM and classical are incommensurable? I think your remarks would be consistent with that view, but these days there doesn't seem to be much consensus on the commensurable/incommensurable debate.

 

[parmalee]

Out of curiosity, would you agree that QM and classical are incommensurable? I think your remarks would be consistent with that view, but these days there doesn't seem to be much consensus on the commensurable/incommensurable debate.

Incidentally, it seems odd that this hasn't come up yet, and we're already, what, 4 or 5 pages into the Kuhn shit? IIRC Kuhn never addressed this specifically, even though Structure... was first published in 1969, seems like he could've weighed in on the matter.

 

[axocanth]

P.S. to my previous post above.

If you think Newton and Einstein are the only two people who have ever proposed a theory of gravity, think again! There must have been dozens, perhaps even hundreds, most of which we've never heard of, of course. Try for example "Three Hundred Years of Gravitation" for a dizzying sample:

Amazon.com

A prize of 1000 bucks, courtesy of TheVat, is hereby offered to the first reader who can identify a hypothesis of gravity. As far as I can discern at least, no one in the history of the world has ever proposed a hypothesis of gravity. Highly confirmed or not, it's invariably a theory.

 

[axocanth]

Incidentally, it seems odd that this hasn't come up yet, and we're already, what, 4 or 5 pages into the Kuhn shit? IIRC Kuhn never addressed this specifically, even though Structure... was first published in 1969, seems like he could've weighed in on the matter.

1962, I believe. Incommensurability is touched on in the "Plato's Beard" thread, though the dreaded name itself was not used as far I recall.

Not impressed by it all?

 

[parmalee]

After delving into the history of science to see whether or not scientists actually follow the various and divergent rules that every Tom, Dick, and Harry insist constitute a vital part of The Scientific Method (TSM), philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend returned in the 1970s with the conclusion -- somewhat scandalous at the time -- that the only discernable rule common to science is: Anything goes! Anarchy!

Having nothing better to do, and no kitten to play with, I just spent some time making use of the site's wonderful search engine to see what other members have been saying about TSM in recent years. Interesting reading indeed!

One potential problem with this approach is that this a discussion forum--and I apologize in advace for saying this--and what people post has not been... peer-reviewed, nor exhaustively vetted. As a lifelong admirer of the Kuhnian and Foucaultian approach (let's not forget: their "methods" are quite similar), I find it hard to form a strong opinion as to whether posters even agree with their own words within such a context. If I wanna say anything definitively about whether or not people do, in fact, mean what they say, I feel an obligation to pore over everything they've ever written or said, every movie they've watched and every book they've read... well, you get the point.

I guess what I'm saying is that some people might appear to be proponents of this singular TSM model, when, in fact, they're simply flustered, or being somewhat lazy, or employing some kind of short hand for convenience sake.

 

[axocanth]

I guess what I'm saying is that some people might appear to be proponents of this singular TSM model, when, in fact, they're simply flustered, or being somewhat lazy, or employing some kind of short hand for convenience sake.

My guess is most members here simply haven't looked into the matter in any detail. They've just accepted the kind of thing seen in elementary textbooks at face value. And when you do, things get very messy indeed.

 

[parmalee]

A prize of 1000 bucks, courtesy of TheVat, is hereby offered to the first reader who can identify a hypothesis of gravity. As far as I can discern at least, no one in the history of the world has ever proposed a hypothesis of gravity. Highly confirmed or not, it's invariably a theory.

I think you will appreciate this: