Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[paultrr]

We had a bit of that religious issue surface in another thread here as far as Calvin versus Arminius. The old "Tulip" versus free will argument. While a total argreement with the complete Calvin position is rare in most modern church groups some do hold to a limited free will.

 

I had just gotten a little curious about the normal athiestic position on this because I see some who tend towards a totally deterministic view which may or may not be actually supported from a scientific perspective. I know we'd like to see things in a deterministic perspective so all our models could be fully correct. But at the current stage as far as theory goes that is not always the case, especially the closer one gets to the start of creation itself.

 

Actually, Biochemist, I saw where you're ID debate about odds was coming from that some of us had a on another thread. But at the same time its those gaps in our ability to predict that I think tends to produce that room for debate in the first place. If we had the ability to say fully step back in time and witness the exact conditions one could perhaps answer the question fully. But lacking such what most of the modern approach does is abstract back from what we do know. Its rather like having say 85% of a data set and trying to figure out the rest of that set. One could ask is there possible error in such an approach? I'd say there is possible error there. In fact, observational correction that we can get has tended to show some of our modeling does require a change or modification. But I've yet to see anyone demonstrate outside of statistical issues anything that fully requires the ID position either. I think the same applies to this subject itself. If we knew everything then perhaps we'd discover the full answer.

 

Statistics can only point out general trends. Not every event can be pinned down with that method which applies to both camps when it comes to this type of debate.

[paultrr]

Hmmm, ?, doesn't 0 influence imply the system being independent of the observer?

 

The observer can't by definition be independent of what is observed! Impartial , yes ;), independent.... ?

 

It does in my book. In fact, say taking Smolin's position on that subject, its impossible for an observer to be fully independent because we are part of what we are trying to observe especially when it comes to say quantum mechanical events. We'd like to have the 0 influence perspective and I hope everyone is impartial. But the first is rather ruled out. In some ways we are lab rats trying to explain an experiment we are part of.

 

PS: Don't take that too literal guys ;) .

[Qfwfq]

...we are part of what we are trying to observe especially when it comes to say quantum mechanical events. We'd like to have the 0 influence perspective and I hope everyone is impartial. But the first is rather ruled out.

In QM we learn that observation implies an interaction. It isn't necessarily an ad hoc interaction though, the matter is simply that with no interaction the observation wouldn't be possible.

 

Is an astronomer influencing a star by seeing the light coming from it? Find the influence in this case!!! ;)

[bumab]

In QM we learn that observation implies an interaction. It isn't necessarily an ad hoc interaction though, the matter is simply that with no interaction the observation wouldn't be possible.

 

Right, which I would say, hampers the scientific method. In a deterministic world, one would not be able to recognize all the interactions, or be impartial, because those interactions influence the observer as well. If the mind of the scientist involved is merely a cascade of causal reactions, then who's to say the conclusions he/she reaches are valid? there was an interaction with the observed object, causing who knows what, and the "discerning mind" of the scientist was undoubtable affected (as you said- observation = interaction)

 

Is an astronomer influencing a star by seeing the light coming from it? Find the influence in this case!!! ;)

 

That was actually the counter argument I was thinking when I wrote that last post. I don't know where to find any influence- but, as you said, observation requires interaction, at least on some rudimentary level. And really, it doesn't invalidate my point, because I was attempting to say that "decisions" and "conclusions," supposedly reached in a rational thought process, are impossible when there's no deciding to be done, without free will.

 

This is really interesting stuff...

[bumab]

The observer can't by definition be independent of what is observed! Impartial , yes ;), independent.... ?

 

Yup, that was my point! ;)

[Fishteacher73]

I had just gotten a little curious about the normal athiestic position on this because I see some who tend towards a totally deterministic view which may or may not be actually supported from a scientific perspective. I know we'd like to see things in a deterministic perspective so all our models could be fully correct. But at the current stage as far as theory goes that is not always the case, especially the closer one gets to the start of creation itself.

 

IMO I see no argument for free-will. The only case for it is our belief in it. There are many examples that indicate that the is no breaking point at which the fundamental laws would not apply. To concede free-will is to concede the inability of science to apply uniformly under the same conditions. I initially was pro free-will, but the only out for this under tighter scrutiny would be a devine power (Which this in itself also instigates another argument against free-will) and this is an option that I cannot completely discount but a concept about which I am very sceptical.

[Qfwfq]

If the mind of the scientist involved is merely a cascade of causal reactions, then who's to say the conclusions he/she reaches are valid?

The more consequential the cascade is, all the way to the conclusions, the more objectively valid they are. Aren't they?

 

there was an interaction with the observed object, causing who knows what, and the "discerning mind" of the scientist was undoubtable affected (as you said- observation = interaction)

Kant fully poses things in these terms in his Transcendental Aesthetics, starting point of his Critique of Pure Reason aimed at casting basis for natural philosophy.

 

That was actually the counter argument I was thinking when I wrote that last post. I don't know where to find any influence- but, as you said, observation requires interaction, at least on some rudimentary level.

Think about it, but I believe you won't find any.

 

And really, it doesn't invalidate my point, because I was attempting to say that "decisions" and "conclusions," supposedly reached in a rational thought process, are impossible when there's no deciding to be done, without free will.

Denying free will makes it absurd to speak of decisions but not to speak of conclusions.

 

This is really interesting stuff...

Yus, 'tis! ;)

[Fishteacher73]

 

Originally Posted by bumab

That was actually the counter argument I was thinking when I wrote that last post. I don't know where to find any influence- but, as you said, observation requires interaction, at least on some rudimentary level.

Think about it, but I believe you won't find any.

 

It could be argued that a photon could be deflected back at the system that would not have occured w/o the specific observation. The result on the system would probably be almost nil, but the system none the less would have be slightly altered.

[bumab]

The more consequential the cascade is, all the way to the conclusions, the more objectively valid they are. Aren't they?

 

Sure, if you are looking for the answer to 1+1 or something as linear as that. But in the scientific method you WEIGH the evidence and decide between competing hypotheses. This requires a decision as to the validity of the evidence and one's response to it. If the cascade is consequential, then no decision is made, it's already been determined by the starting conditions.

 

Kant fully poses things in these terms in his Transcendental Aesthetics, starting point of his Critique of Pure Reason aimed at casting basis for natural philosophy.

 

It's been a while since I read Kant, I should revisit it.

 

Think about it, but I believe you won't find any.

 

I'm not sure I could either, except some unobservable QM thing. But that's not really the point. If we influence small scale things by observing them due to our interactions, as we agreed (insects, molocules, etc.) , and not large scale things like stars- where's the line that get's crossed? When does something become un-interactable? (to coin a new word).

 

So, I don't think it matters, I think the point is something different then how much we affect what we observe. The point is we do, albeit in an infintesimal way. I don't like drawing lines in the sand anymore the others around this site ;)

 

Denying free will makes it absurd to speak of decisions but not to speak of conclusions.

 

I agree. You were agreeing with my statement, right?

 

Yus, 'tis! ;)

 

:D

[Biochemist]

The more consequential the cascade is, all the way to the conclusions, the more objectively valid they are. Aren't they?

This question is actually the core topic of the thread. My contention is that if our observations and our thoughts about the observations are fully deterministic, we would have no way recognizing whether the "consequential cascade" was valid, any more than a deer in the woods "knows" that a noise in the woods is dangerous. We just have a reaction to it. There would be no underlying assessment of facts, just a reaction to them. Assessment would be impossible. And our reaction could be based on "reality" or not. We would have no way of knowing.

 

I think we got a little sidetracked on the discussion about whether it is possible to observe a system without influencing it. That discussion is relevant, but the core issue is whether we have any basis for analysis at all, if we are only the resultants of previous events.

[Biochemist]

Denying free will makes it absurd to speak of decisions but not to speak of conclusions.

Sorry, Q- I have lost my pointer to where you are on this. Are you saying that denial of free will does create a question on the validity of the scientific method, or were you arguing the opposite?

[Fishteacher73]

The cascade effect for one person, because of slightly different circumstances(or even vastly different) could be quite different. at the same token one can start at different "locations" and follow different cascade path's but end up at the same point. I think this re-occurance is the validation. Reproducable outcomes. This allows for a deterministic universe and still upholds the validity of the SM.

[Fishteacher73]

For analogy, examine a NASCAR race (in basic terms). The cars only go in a clockwise direction in an oval. There is no other option. This is determined. Just because this is the only way for them to race, it does not negate the intricaies of the mechanics of the engine nor the necessity of understanding them.

[Biochemist]

...Reproducable outcomes. This allows for a deterministic universe and still upholds the validity of the SM.

...And you mean reproducibility in different observers. I think this is a really good point.

 

It doesn't completely get around the "react like a deer in the woods" problem, because all deer react that way, but is is still a really good point. I will have to noodle this for a day or two.

[bumab]

The cascade effect for one person, because of slightly different circumstances(or even vastly different) could be quite different. at the same token one can start at different "locations" and follow different cascade path's but end up at the same point. I think this re-occurance is the validation. Reproducable outcomes. This allows for a deterministic universe and still upholds the validity of the SM.

 

So are you saying that validity can be found in a preponderance of evidence, as in individual observations may or may not be "true," however a lot of observations together count as validation?

[Fishteacher73]

We can do something wrong lots of ways. In something as specific as the SM, there is only a pass fail response. The hypothesis was true or was false. We expect for a true hypothesis to be able to be retested with the same procedure and get the expected results. (The only way for something to be "true" in a deterministic universe). This is the only way we currently accept research as valid. The whole cold fusion thing in the mid 80's is a good example of something not being reproducable, and therefore not accepted into the science comunity..

[paultrr]

We can do something wrong lots of ways. In something as specific as the SM, there is only a pass fail response. The hypothesis was true or was false. We expect for a true hypothesis to be able to be retested with the same procedure and get the expected results. (The only way for something to be "true" in a deterministic universe). This is the only way we currently accept research as valid. The whole cold fusion thing in the mid 80's is a good example of something not being reproducable, and therefore not accepted into the science comunity..

 

Actually, part of the SM is quantum theory which has its own uncertanity. At the point things become uncertain there is no exact predictability or determinism. Thus, a non-deterministic situation underlines the standard model itself.