Empirical Evidence

HugalHugal Shipmate
In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?
«1

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    What do we get that needs some more science to prove God done it?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Empirical evidence can only be found by examination of the observable substances we see around us. From the very large to the very small. Whether observed up close or far away. The meaning we draw from the empirical evidence, the way we theorize or hypothesise about that evidence is another matter, involving our intelligence and imagination.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    And our desire and fear.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I think the desire is to make some kind of sense about what we see. The fear is that it may not make sense! If God didn't exist we would have to invent him? Or drop the need for "big picture" meaning?

    Ah, postmodernism emerges again!
  • Hugal wrote: »
    In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?

    I'm not really following. As far as I'm concerned the accumulation of knowledge doesn't really work like this.

    Nobody looked at cholera epidemics and immediately leaped to the idea that there must be a microscopic organism causing the disease.

    It was more of a stepwise process. For example John Snow suspected the Broad Street epidemic was caused by the water rather than bad air, and used mapping of the victims to give a level of evidence. He then removed a pump handle and saw an impact on the outbreak.

    He could have been wrong and he could have misinterpreted the available evidence, but in fact each piece of information he gathered was able to strengthen his understanding of the topic and narrow down the direction he should be looking for the causes and treatment of cholera.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think the desire is to make some kind of sense about what we see. The fear is that it may not make sense! If God didn't exist we would have to invent him? Or drop the need for "big picture" meaning?

    Ah, postmodernism emerges again!

    I'm beyond that.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    KoF wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?

    I'm not really following. As far as I'm concerned the accumulation of knowledge doesn't really work like this.

    Nobody looked at cholera epidemics and immediately leaped to the idea that there must be a microscopic organism causing the disease.

    It was more of a stepwise process. For example John Snow suspected the Broad Street epidemic was caused by the water rather than bad air, and used mapping of the victims to give a level of evidence. He then removed a pump handle and saw an impact on the outbreak.

    He could have been wrong and he could have misinterpreted the available evidence, but in fact each piece of information he gathered was able to strengthen his understanding of the topic and narrow down the direction he should be looking for the causes and treatment of cholera.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

    I understand that. But it strikes me that if we rely on only what is observable then we don’t move forward. It is, as here taking risk that leads to forward movement. Following a hunch that something is at work that we cannot see. That may lead to empirical evidence but is not.
  • Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think the desire is to make some kind of sense about what we see. The fear is that it may not make sense! If God didn't exist we would have to invent him? Or drop the need for "big picture" meaning?

    Ah, postmodernism emerges again!

    I'm beyond that.

    Wow. You must be in a bad way. What follows post modernism in your thought world? Despair? Or a return to pre modernism?

    Basically I’m still a modernist, though a bit refined by the justifiable observations of post modernism. I’m not naive about the potential capture of scientific investigation or historical criticism by academic power brokers. But once you see the risks, it’s possible to avoid them. You just need a decent moral compass.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?
    Big Theory science is (although that's the simplified version). A lot of normal science involves trying to work out the structure of proteins or the composition of minerals or which animal is most closely related to which, and that's a lot closer to looking and seeing what is there.

    Big theory science is usually a reaction to normal science unearthing problems.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?

    I'm not really following. As far as I'm concerned the accumulation of knowledge doesn't really work like this.

    Nobody looked at cholera epidemics and immediately leaped to the idea that there must be a microscopic organism causing the disease.

    It was more of a stepwise process. For example John Snow suspected the Broad Street epidemic was caused by the water rather than bad air, and used mapping of the victims to give a level of evidence. He then removed a pump handle and saw an impact on the outbreak.

    He could have been wrong and he could have misinterpreted the available evidence, but in fact each piece of information he gathered was able to strengthen his understanding of the topic and narrow down the direction he should be looking for the causes and treatment of cholera.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

    I understand that. But it strikes me that if we rely on only what is observable then we don’t move forward. It is, as here taking risk that leads to forward movement. Following a hunch that something is at work that we cannot see. That may lead to empirical evidence but is not.

    The problem is that religion tends to promote hypothesis (or "hunch") to a status equivalent to scientific theory (i.e. taught in the science classroom/pulpit as "what we think is the case") without that experimental process to test it. What I think I and a lot of other people are asking is what religion's equivalent testing process is, and how do we know it gives reliable results? How does it self-correct?

    This isn't to demand religion work like science, but it is reasonable to ask what the analogues are, to give rise to its truth claims.
  • I thought science starts with a guess.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    I thought science starts with a guess.

    We call it hypothesis but yes. The really important bit is subjecting it to the scientific method. It's not perfect but it has a good long term track record.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".

    Mmm. But then if we look at John Snow's work on cholera and arguably many other scientists who have considered many things, they've spent a long time mapping, observing and explaining phenomena.

    Another example is Florence Nightingale, who was a pioneer in Data Visualisation and statistics.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-florence-nightingale-changed-data-visualization-forever/

    Not all scientific knowledge (or in fact knowledge in total) requires a test of falsifiability.

    Another example happened during the COVID-19 pandemic; professors of clinical medicine fought pitched battles with (amazingly) professors of aerosol science. The former insisted that nothing could be known about facemasks without a full clinical trial. The latter, coming from engineering training, insisted that clinical trials were not necessary because there was existing data about the behaviour of aerosols and the effectiveness of barriers with different sized holes.

    There's no "deceit" here. Statistics and visualisation are both tools of science, whether or not there is a formal test. Similarly, it is possible to learn from previous results and apply knowledge to consider likely results.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    In another thread there has been some talk of empirical evidence. Surely there has to be a stage where something is not provable, maybe there is not the tech to prove it, but you must believe it there other wise you wouldn’t want to find proof. Am I making myself clear? I get hay fever. How long was it before we could prove that pollen is the culprit?

    I'm not really following. As far as I'm concerned the accumulation of knowledge doesn't really work like this.

    Nobody looked at cholera epidemics and immediately leaped to the idea that there must be a microscopic organism causing the disease.

    It was more of a stepwise process. For example John Snow suspected the Broad Street epidemic was caused by the water rather than bad air, and used mapping of the victims to give a level of evidence. He then removed a pump handle and saw an impact on the outbreak.

    He could have been wrong and he could have misinterpreted the available evidence, but in fact each piece of information he gathered was able to strengthen his understanding of the topic and narrow down the direction he should be looking for the causes and treatment of cholera.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

    I understand that. But it strikes me that if we rely on only what is observable then we don’t move forward. It is, as here taking risk that leads to forward movement. Following a hunch that something is at work that we cannot see. That may lead to empirical evidence but is not.

    The problem is that religion tends to promote hypothesis (or "hunch") to a status equivalent to scientific theory (i.e. taught in the science classroom/pulpit as "what we think is the case") without that experimental process to test it. What I think I and a lot of other people are asking is what religion's equivalent testing process is, and how do we know it gives reliable results? How does it self-correct?

    This isn't to demand religion work like science, but it is reasonable to ask what the analogues are, to give rise to its truth claims.

    Most knowledge isn't like that. Most things we know are not formally proven in a scientific sense.

    I know my wife loves me. I don't propose attempting a double-blind trial to find out if this is true. I have plenty of evidence (that might not meet the standards of a scientific trial) that this is true.

    If I ever had a pulpit, I could talk about it. I could possibly even produce statistics and show evidence. But it isn't something that is even possible to interrogate with a scientific trial.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KoF wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".

    Mmm. But then if we look at John Snow's work on cholera and arguably many other scientists who have considered many things, they've spent a long time mapping, observing and explaining phenomena.

    Another example is Florence Nightingale, who was a pioneer in Data Visualisation and statistics.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-florence-nightingale-changed-data-visualization-forever/

    Not all scientific knowledge (or in fact knowledge in total) requires a test of falsifiability.

    Another example happened during the COVID-19 pandemic; professors of clinical medicine fought pitched battles with (amazingly) professors of aerosol science. The former insisted that nothing could be known about facemasks without a full clinical trial. The latter, coming from engineering training, insisted that clinical trials were not necessary because there was existing data about the behaviour of aerosols and the effectiveness of barriers with different sized holes.

    There's no "deceit" here. Statistics and visualisation are both tools of science, whether or not there is a formal test. Similarly, it is possible to learn from previous results and apply knowledge to consider likely results.

    None of that really relates to my point that the proposals that are brought to the table are called hypotheses, and that Creationists deceive their followers by playing on a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science.

    Data analysis and observation are part of falsification. If my hypothesis predicts I should see pattern A in the data and I don't, then that may falsify the hypothesis (in principle; in practice It's A Bit More Complicated Than That)
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?
    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it.
    I understand why you want to distinguish between hypothesis and theory, but as I understand it the emphasis on falsification misrepresents actual scientific practice. It's just that falsifying a hypothesis is in most cases easier and more reliable than verifying it.
    (Also from a psychological standpoint it's more counterintuitive so you have to emphasise it to encourage doing it.)

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".

    Mmm. But then if we look at John Snow's work on cholera and arguably many other scientists who have considered many things, they've spent a long time mapping, observing and explaining phenomena.

    Another example is Florence Nightingale, who was a pioneer in Data Visualisation and statistics.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-florence-nightingale-changed-data-visualization-forever/

    Not all scientific knowledge (or in fact knowledge in total) requires a test of falsifiability.

    Another example happened during the COVID-19 pandemic; professors of clinical medicine fought pitched battles with (amazingly) professors of aerosol science. The former insisted that nothing could be known about facemasks without a full clinical trial. The latter, coming from engineering training, insisted that clinical trials were not necessary because there was existing data about the behaviour of aerosols and the effectiveness of barriers with different sized holes.

    There's no "deceit" here. Statistics and visualisation are both tools of science, whether or not there is a formal test. Similarly, it is possible to learn from previous results and apply knowledge to consider likely results.

    None of that really relates to my point that the proposals that are brought to the table are called hypotheses, and that Creationists deceive their followers by playing on a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science.

    Data analysis and observation are part of falsification. If my hypothesis predicts I should see pattern A in the data and I don't, then that may falsify the hypothesis (in principle; in practice It's A Bit More Complicated Than That)

    Ok well I know a bit about data visualisation and we typically do not do that. It's entirely valid to do analysis and discuss what is seen in the visualisation.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited March 2024
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think the desire is to make some kind of sense about what we see. The fear is that it may not make sense! If God didn't exist we would have to invent him? Or drop the need for "big picture" meaning?

    Ah, postmodernism emerges again!

    I'm beyond that.

    a) Wow. You must be in a bad way.

    b) What follows post modernism in your thought world? Despair? Or a return to pre modernism?

    c) Basically I’m still a modernist, though a bit refined by the justifiable observations of post modernism. I’m not naive about the potential capture of scientific investigation or historical criticism by academic power brokers. But once you see the risks, it’s possible to avoid them. You just need a decent moral compass.

    a) :smile: I am.

    b) I'm trying to get the balance right on despair, yes. In folk postmodernist folk I've repeatedly encountered the inability to face the greatest single fact of all, especially on SoF, but among other friends. Infinity.

    c) Science and history are at risk very mainly in America, in the 'free' world, from conservative 'Christians' and the cynical politicians, with no true moral compass, who feed on them.



  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited March 2024
    Elaine Storkey observed that postmodern scepticism about metanarratives was itself a metanarrative. I liked that. She said that students she taught in the 70s also liked it, found it illuminating. But things had changed. Students who heard the same thing in the 90s and naughties would say 'So?' Or even 'So what?'.

    She was worried about their lack of concern, or ability to process a logical argument. Wasn't quite sure which it was.

    For my money, Martin, there is less respect for the value of a good argument these days. A kind of emerging barbarism. But I try not to let it get to me.

    Good luck mate. We all go through times of change.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Thanks mate. Not much change left.

    Aye, postmodernism is its own nemesis. Much like the inanity of 'you can't prove a negative'. People have stopped using that round here since I pointed that out. But they still believe it.

    I'm astounded by how we turn our heads to make sure the elephant in the room is in our blindspot, or behind us, or above our heads between our knees. That infinity doesn't exist.

    I'd welcome correction.

  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    Maybe, but at some point guesswork happens.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    Fear (of the unknown)?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    Fear (of the unknown)?

    You're not wrong.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    Fear (of the unknown)?

    You're not wrong.

    Well, quite a while ago I became tired of being told that I'd go to Hell, and burn forever, if I disobeyed God's Laws™.

    Somehow, looking at the Holy Priest™ who said this, I lost my fear...
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    The question "Why?" ?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited March 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    Fear (of the unknown)?

    You're not wrong.

    Well, quite a while ago I became tired of being told that I'd go to Hell, and burn forever, if I disobeyed God's Laws™.

    Somehow, looking at the Holy Priest™ who said this, I lost my fear...

    Was this after the C17th?
  • O yes - back in 2016, in fact...
    :wink:
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    O yes - back in 2016, in fact...
    :wink:

    I've heard such insane filth, very thinly veiled, from the same period. From an Anglican lectern. Just repeating the insane C1st filth of Rev. 22:15 which condemned about half his audience.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    The question "Why?" ?

    Or perhaps when no answer to *why?* is vouchsafed...
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".

    I appreciate this, @KarlLB, and will add it to the repertoire of ways I've heard the word "theory" clarified re: Science vs. a general usage of "theory" to mean 'unproven,' often in attempts to disparage Science.

    It's closely filed in my mind near the idea of the field of History (& the more true the farther back we're talking) as an attempt to reveal probabilities, and not necessarily absolute facts.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am in the process of reading Ezra Klein's book Why Are We So Polarized. He writes it is because of group identity. He cites some examples how Democrats can look at climate change data and say there is real climate change. On the other hand, Republicans will likely look at the same data and says it proves nothing. You can have cold, hard data but there may be several interpretations of the data.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    O yes - back in 2016, in fact...
    :wink:

    I've heard such insane filth, very thinly veiled, from the same period. From an Anglican lectern. Just repeating the insane C1st filth of Rev. 22:15 which condemned about half his audience.

    Only half?

    Joking aside, I'm not saying the Orthodox are 'better' than anyone else, but there us a reason why Revelation isn't used liturgically and why some Eastern churches were the last to accept it as canonical.

    It is cited in books, articles and commentary of course. I'm not sure I've heard it referenced in an Orthodox sermon. I did once observe an Orthodox and Presbyterian scholar spontaneously join forces at a conference to roundly trounce the eschatological loopiness of a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals who'd attended and who touting all their Dispensationalist guff.

    That's not to say you won't find Orthodox who aren't 'damnationists' as you'd put it but I can't say I've found a big emphasis on it. Nor, these days, with a few exceptions, have I come across many evangelical or other Protestants tub-thumping about it either. That isn't to say it's not out there but it certainly doesn't seem fashionable.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am in the process of reading Ezra Klein's book Why Are We So Polarized. He writes it is because of group identity. He cites some examples how Democrats can look at climate change data and say there is real climate change. On the other hand, Republicans will likely look at the same data and says it proves nothing. You can have cold, hard data but there may be several interpretations of the data.

    However, not all interpretations are equal. We prioritise the interpretations of those who best understand the material. Such as, in this case, climatologists. And then, interestingly, the data becomes considerably less open to varying interpretations.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am in the process of reading Ezra Klein's book Why Are We So Polarized. He writes it is because of group identity. He cites some examples how Democrats can look at climate change data and say there is real climate change. On the other hand, Republicans will likely look at the same data and says it proves nothing. You can have cold, hard data but there may be several interpretations of the data.

    However, not all interpretations are equal. We prioritise the interpretations of those who best understand the material. Such as, in this case, climatologists. And then, interestingly, the data becomes considerably less open to varying interpretations.

    This is true; however it is also true that climatology is essentially advanced data collection, visualisation and modelling. It's not generally something that is falsifiable.

    Still an important piece of science, of course.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    I think climatology does make predictions that could be falsified, and unfortunately they have not been falsified.
  • Ok yes there are various models which can be compared to further instrumental measures.

    But that's not the same as a double blind trial. Or the usual 'gold standards' which are usually in play when we talk about science. Because it isn't that kind of thing.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    The question "Why?" ?

    Exactly. There are no why questions.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    That's not to say you won't find Orthodox who aren't 'damnationists' as you'd put it but I can't say I've found a big emphasis on it. Nor, these days, with a few exceptions, have I come across many evangelical or other Protestants tub-thumping about it either. That isn't to say it's not out there but it certainly doesn't seem fashionable.

    @Gamma Gamaliel Among protestants in the US, I think it is the norm. Mainline ("liberal") protestant churches are dying here, at least according to statistical reports. The churches that are thriving or growing fall under the "evangelical" (whatever that means anymore - John Piper to Benny Hinn) umbrella preach eternal judgement. Hell fire is not the main sermon topic, but it is in the doctrinal statements.
  • The_Riv wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KoF wrote: »
    Science is about proposing a theory and then finding ways to test it. No?

    No. It's about proposing a hypothesis and finding ways to falsify it. If the hypothesis is not falsified then that's evidence that the hypothesis is valid and it may become part of a wider corpus of understanding or knowledge.

    One of the banes of public understanding of science is failure to understand what theory in science is. Theory in science is like Driving Theory or Theory of Music - it's the intellectual underpinning of our model of a part of reality. It's not a mere hypothesis, and it's not a "hunch" either. It's all the stuff you learn about why you observe what you observe.

    This is where professional creationists deceive their followers with phrases like "evolution is only a theory".

    I appreciate this, @KarlLB, and will add it to the repertoire of ways I've heard the word "theory" clarified re: Science vs. a general usage of "theory" to mean 'unproven,' often in attempts to disparage Science.

    It's closely filed in my mind near the idea of the field of History (& the more true the farther back we're talking) as an attempt to reveal probabilities, and not necessarily absolute facts.

    So what does reveal absolute facts? Or is the set of absolute facts just very small and entirely outside the remit of science?

    I'd also note that virtually all methods of inquiry begin from observation. 21st century science doesn't have a special claim to this, despite its bellowing.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    The question "Why?" ?

    Exactly. There are no why questions.

    There certainly are.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Science does not start with a guess; it starts with observation, record-keeping and the search for patterns. There is a long slow accumulation of ideas.

    What does unwarranted or unjustified, untrue belief start with?

    The question "Why?" ?

    Exactly. There are no why questions.

    There certainly are.

    Not about non-intentional reality there aren't.
  • You'll have to define non-intentional reality.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited March 2024
    Phenomena with no mind involved. Because although why did the chicken cross the road is valid, it doesn't require intentionality. Purpose. Teleology. Nature, which is all there is, has none ultimately. Intentional agents only have personal motive. A conscious reason for doing things.
  • So you're saying there is no why to be asked about mind-independent phenomena?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Of course. None that can't be answered by nature. Ultimately just like mind-dependent ones.
  • In one sense I agree with you, since the things that are in the world simply are in the world, full stop. Questioning the phenomena themselves is pointless; they simply are and present a fullness of being. On the other hand, if one understands a why-question to be a shorthand form for asking after the causal chain that led to the particular instantiation of the phenomena, then I disagree with you because one can ask 'why?' about a fork and get a large explanation about the causal chain that led to the crafting of the fork and how that fork got to you in such a way that you're able to ask why about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.