Would you agree with this statement?

[Glenn Lyvers]

This is my original statement. If you like my assertion let me know. If you don't, tell me why.

 

What do you think?

 

When considering Astronomy and Cosmology,

 

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved. The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism. Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

[lemit]

I can't imagine what might have prompted you to start this thread.

 

A little too much is made of Occam's Razor, but at the beginning of any investigation, it's always good to balance Occam against your personal predilections. If you're looking for your keys, be sure to first check your pocket, even if you "know" you emptied it.

 

The problem in astronomy, cosmology, and theoretical physics is that--when we look up--Occam gives us a flat, bluish balloon over our heads with objects seemingly swimming on its surface, thus matching our personal observation. That theory may be right, but I doubt it. Both Occam and personal observation are demonstrably wrong when we take the time to use the proper instruments.

 

(Sometimes in these fora we regress to that place where Occam, personal predilection, and lots of townsfolk with pitchforks dwell.)

 

I get the impression that you have as much trouble doing science as I do. Math that can't be done in my head is beyond me. I have learned to trust authority in this respect as well as many other respects. I have also learned to question authority when my instincts or observations differ. Math can't make the sun come up from a different direction--even if it can explain an aberration in the orbit of Mercury.

 

Thank you for starting this thread (for whatever unimaginable reason you might have). It has the potential to be a lot of fun.

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

This is my original statement. If you like my assertion let me know. If you don't, tell me why.

 

What do you think?

 

When considering Astronomy and Cosmology,

 

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved. The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism. Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

 

So, we should never exclude the possibility of stars being made of pixie dust? Perhaps we sit it at the back of the line with thoughts that dragons weave through the night sky to create what we see.

 

These are aspects of your "scientific mind". According to your logic, these possibilities are faint, but should not be discounted. Do you see the problem here? Almost any conjecture can be regarded this way. Science does not work by limiting the possible to the plausable. It works by considering plausability and persuing truth through a limited lens.This limting lens (or filter) is exactly what is needed to make science possible. Otherwise, we'd still be attempting to answer questions like, Is it possible that a pot of gold rests at the end of every rainbow? Probably not, but you can't exclude the possibility! :naughty:

 

Of course, the biggest problem with an Appeal to Ignorance is the raising of the bar. For example, I find a rainbow and pursue it to its ends. I find no pot of gold. A typical response would be, "well, not *every* rainbow has a pot of gold, but you can not prove that all do not! Perhaps only American rainbows do not have pots of gold". So I travel to Ireland and find several rainbows, without pots of gold. "Well, this does not prove that rainbows do not have pots of gold, it only proves that rainbows *typically* do not have pots of gold at the ends in either the US or Ireland." ad infinitum

 

It's always easier to raise the bar than to question its height.

[lemit]

It's always easier to raise the bar than to question its height.

 

Stephen Hawking would disagree.

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

Stephen Hawking would disagree.

 

--lemit

 

Well, Stephen is welcome to come here and publicly disagree. :naughty:

[Glenn Lyvers]

Lemit: Thank you for starting this thread (for whatever unimaginable reason you might have). It has the potential to be a lot of fun.

 

I wanted to participate in the forum and I thought this post might help me introduce myself, as well as learn a bit more about the people here. Your "pitchforks" comment made me smile.

 

:naughty:

Glenn

[Michael Mooney]

Glenn Lyvers

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved. The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism. Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

 

Freezetar:

 

So, we should never exclude the possibility of stars being made of pixie dust? Perhaps we sit it at the back of the line with thoughts that dragons weave through the night sky to create what we see.

 

Freezetar,

Could it be that your reply intentionally casts Glenn's statement in the context of the most absurd "possibility" in disrespect to the clearly reasonable essence of his proposal? I think so. i do not believe anyone here would advocate that stars are made of pixie dust or that dragons create the canopy of stars which we all appreciate as intelligent beings. I think you are being very rude in this obviously absurd caraciture of what he is quite reasonably proposing... an honest, open minded lack of pre-programed bias in all scientists... that "objectivityt" that we all endorsed before our Phd's piled our biases "higher and deeper" as we we became more and more convinced of our favorite chosen interpretations of 'reality" according to the most authoritative theories in our chosen fields.

 

Do you think that a cosmos of energy/matter/plasma expanding out into an infinite field of empty space (my "baby') is as absurd as stars of pixie dust and the night sky a tapestry of dragons' weaving?

This is a serious question, because it is clear to me that you "diss" objective, open minded, reasonal alternative theories in a very "bashing" way here... which will discourage honest dialogue by such tactics as your ridicule.

 

Michael

[Eclogite]

I am bemused by freezstar's comments. Only years of dealing with creationists, UFOlogists and the like can account for his reply.:lol:

 

Freezstar, Glenn very specifically stated he was talking about theories. Theories as you well know are a the result of considerable observation, experimentation, peer review and validation. You have replied to him as if he he had used the words speculation, or wild assed guess, or thoughtless mind fart.

 

Glenn, if you used the word theory to reflect what I have stated above then I wholeheartedly agree with your post to the point where I can't really imagine why you would want to state the obvious.

 

On the other hand, if you meant it more along the lines of how Freezstar seems to have interpreted it, then I agree with him to the point where I wish he had been ruder.:lol:

[Glenn Lyvers]

NO, I mean a scientific theory - being both testable and falsifiable.

 

I will confess I have used the worth "theory" in the lay persons sense of the word, in some of my writing in other threads, which were philosophical/theological. It brings up an interesting observation.

 

You rightly posed (implied) the question "Which definition of the word "theory" did you intend?" It is often not entirely obvious, and even when it is obvious, it can be used as a tool by people who seek to appose a position on a topic (whatever it is). For example, if one says, "That's my theory (hunch) anyway" or "Joes theory (idea) about religion is..." etc... they often mean the lay persons sense of the word, but someone who is hostile to religion might say "Ahh Ha!" and then attack the person, professing them to be unintelligent and some type of moron because their "theory" is not testable/falsifiable/evidence-based etc, thus they distort the facts (purposeful equivocation). That type of rude incivility is not fair minded, of course.

 

People should be fair, because the word can be misunderstood contextually, and you have demonstrated the right thing to do in such cases - simply ask.

 

But, I would like to stay on topic here. I meant the text in "this" post to mean theory in the scientific definition of the word.

[InfiniteNow]

You rightly posed (implied) the question "Which definition of the word "theory" did you intend?" It is often not entirely obvious, and even when it is obvious, it can be used as a tool by people who seek to appose a position on a topic (whatever it is). For example, if one says, "That's my theory (hunch) anyway" or "Joes theory (idea) about religion is..." etc... they often mean the lay persons sense of the word, but someone who is hostile to religion might say "Ahh Ha!" and then attack the person, professing them to be unintelligent and some type of moron because their "theory" is not testable/falsifiable/evidence-based etc, thus they distort the facts (purposeful equivocation). That type of rude incivility is not fair minded, of course.

 

People should be fair, because the word can be misunderstood contextually...

 

The context in which a word is used helps to clarify its meaning. Since Hypography was founded as a scientific forum, the context of science should be taken as implicit throughout... It will always be the default stance for all posts made here. Additionally, in science, precise language is important, and vague terms with multiple meanings must be defined if you intend to use them with a different meaning than those used in science.

 

In much the same way, any time a person speaks of "evidence" at this site, implicit in their word will be the understanding of "scientific evidence," since this is a science-based site. For example, someone will be challenged openly if they try to suggest that their fireplace, their flowers, or the singing of birds (for example) are "evidence" of deity, but not if they present some empirical data which is consistent, replicable, and adequately supports the claim being made. Along these same lines, the one making the assertion must present a clear definition with well-defined parameters if they choose to use a word with ambiguous meaning.

 

There are plenty of words to describe a non-scientific idea, such as "conjecture," "hypothesis," or "speculation." If you stick with those, and remember that the word "theory" means something else entirely, you'll do fine.

 

 

As per the OP, science is a methodologically naturalistic. A key axiom of this methodology is that everything we perceive in the universe can be explained by the working of natural laws. Following from this, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual making the claim, and that proof must be naturalistic. If no naturalistic evidence is presented, then the claim can be categorically ignored as baseless and unsupported.

 

It's silly for anyone to think that we should accept every single strange and ill-based idea without some clear evidence being presented in its favor, or that it is up to the reader to prove an idea false. The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion, and this approach is profoundly powerful in helping us to understand our universe in a way that is not subject to the individual biases, preconceptions, or misguided notions of the individual.

[modest]

NO, I mean a scientific theory - being both testable and falsifiable.

No, You did not, and Freezy rightly picked up on that. Posts which you wrote subsequent to the OP demonstrate your use of the word "theory" is equivalent to the scientific use of the word "hypothesis". For example, if you meant the word theory to indicate falsifiability then why would you write this a couple hours later:

Some theories or causal relationship hypotheses are not testable.

:lol: If it doesn't make testable predictions then it isn't a theory. In your post written directly after the OP you talk about John Locke's theory of god...

His assertion is that, because God created men, they share this common origin and therefore aught not cause harm to one another because doing so is an insult to their common creator.

 

This theory goes way back to the 1600's and Locke's theories are the foundations for the USA constitution.

John Locke's philosophy is not a theory and neither is Anselm's assumption that "god is perfect" nor your deist ideas that god created the big bang. They are all opinions based on faith and personal belief. The scientific method demands: "If an object cannot be shown to exist, the default position is that it does not exist". If you think about that... we don't (as scientists) have to weigh credibility between intelligent design and stars made of pixie dust. Until either lead to testable predictions the default scientific position is that neither are valid assumptions. That's really all there is to it.

 

~modest

[Glenn Lyvers]

Inow:

 

I think you are right. People should try and be specific, and it's not too hard to avoid confusion if you try and stick to scientific language.

 

I need to work on that myself. I make mistakes - but I'm trying to mold myself into a better participant here.

 

Thanks for your kind reply to my post.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Modest,

 

If it's OK, I really want to try and keep the posts I make in "this" topic, isolated from posts I made in the theology or philosophy posts. Of course I admitted I'm not immune to mistakes in using the word "theory" and as such, it serves no purpose for you to digress into my flaws. The topic in this thread is "Would you agree with the statement" - and the question as to if I meant "theory" in the scientific sense in this thread, was answered (yes it was intended to be purely scientific).

 

I think if I try and argue the point you drug over from some other topic, then I'm really just getting away from the topic of this thread. So, I hope you wont take any offense if I simply ask to discuss this topic, the way it is intended from my post.

 

You are a moderator so I know you must see threads go wild into off subjects. I don't want to be guilty of that if I can help it.

 

Peace,

Glenn

[modest]

I'm responding to this, from the opening post:

 

Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

 

The general theme of what you're saying is not right. Science doesn't start with the premise that anything is possible then systematically exclude possibilities which are proven wrong. That approach is antithetical to the scientific method.

 

It is easy to deliberately, or through mental illness, imagine things that do not exist. examples that immediately come to mind are time-machines, leprechauns, hairy blue frogs, elephants that fly. Anyone could make up such things all day with no real effort. And there are an infinite number of these non-existent things that could potentially be imagined.

 

But it is nearly impossible to prove that these things do not actually exist, or have never existed. You would have to show you had looked everywhere the object could be and still not found one. Even then it could be said that the thing was hidden, or moved while you were looking for it, or you looked at the wrong time...

 

The same principle applies in general science. For this reason the onus is always on the believer to provide convincing evidence that the object believed in is not merely a laughable fantasy but actually exists. This is called the ‘Burden of Proof’...

 

There is an important consequence to this - if an object cannot be shown to exist, the default position is that it does not exist. It is axiomic that something does not exist unless shown otherwise.

 

Scientific Method & the Burden of Proof

So, this idea that an hypothesis is excluded only when it has been disproved is not correct—at least not according to the scientific method. In fact, in science a theory which is disproved is often considered to have more merit than one which is not falsifiable. In the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli remarking on a very bad idea, "That's not right. It's not even wrong".

 

Another small objection I would have with the opening post:

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved.

A scientific theory is never proven:

What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

 

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

This part I more-or-less agree with:

The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism.

~modest

[maddog]

This is my original statement. If you like my assertion let me know. If you don't, tell me why.

 

What do you think?

 

When considering Astronomy and Cosmology,

 

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved. The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism. Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

Interesting thread / assertion.

 

I caution the *generic* use of the word "should" as "that person should do this"...

Personally and from the experience from being around Hypography, I sympathize with

what appears to be dogma as crystallized. In general [fields of science], I might disagree.

However, in Cosmology (more than Astronomy), or for that matter where Theory has

outstrip the ability to corroborate with evidence. A good example for me here is the

current representation of string theory (M-Theory).

All you have to go on is the elegance of the theory itself.

Even though in a pure sense, it would be good for scientists to consider this in general.

In the same vein, as most scientists engaged in a field where the enthusiasm of a discovery,

said scientist might be myopic to an unseen flaw in their respective theory. These usually

come out in the crucible of evidence (or the lack of it).

I guess the most notable historical figure might have Einstein himself when contiually

attempting to eschew Quantum Theories of Bohr, Schroedinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, et al.

His myopic view did not allow for indeterminism in local causality.

So in the pure sense, what you say may have some merit. I do feel that the responsibility

lies with each individual scientist to persue their discovery with whatever passion they

can muster tinged with some skepticism and self reflection. Each so do this in their own

way. IMHO. :confused:

 

maddog