Scientific Method Mega Thread

[Urwumpe]

True mathematicians know that 1 + 1 can also be sausage...

 

[RichWall]

True mathematicians know that 1 + 1 can also be sausage...

You might have this one reviewed.

 

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Well, I usually go by the rule "it's all right to be wrong, it's not all right to want to be wrong". So, unless she won't even try to listen to someone politely explaining her mistake, everything is just fine to me. I don't see explaining to people why they are wrong as humiliating them, rather as preventing their humiliation in the future.

being shown that we are wrong is one of the ways we learn and grow. Anyone who takes offense to being proven wrong is probably someone who holds onto a belief for emotional reasons.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

I understand your point, but I can't agree that a good teacher should not be allowed to teach because he/she has mentioned opinions we disagree with.

There is a difference between opinion and fact. it is not a matter of opinion when someone claims that the moon has no gravity. It is a matter of fact, and the facts are pretty clear: the moon has gravity.

Also, someone believing something that is demonstrably wrong in the face of disconfirming evidence sets that person's brain up to more easily accept other false truths, because that mentality tends to breed a lack of fact checking and a reliance on popular opinion.

 

[2Gm over cxc]

You have to start at the beginning.

What do you know with certainty? That you are aware of your thoughts.

Since you are aware of your thoughts, you can conclude that you exist.

Now we have "Cogito ergo sum".

Good... you exist... next step.

What do you know about your thoughts with certainty? Only that they exist and that you are aware of them. Their nature, and the nature of their content, however, remains unknown.


So it's too early to move on to claiming the existence of a true objective world around you, based on the mere content of your thoughts.

Don't blame me if you don't like the truth. .

But how do you know that you are aware of your thoughts? If you question the content of your thoughts, I see no reason why you shouldn't question your ability to have a thought, and therefore exist. Look at it this way. A thought is a human description of a psychological concept. To know what a thought is, one must accept this external definition. This is where the logic breaks down, in my opinion. If you cannot trust the content of your thoughts, then you cannot understand what a thought is, or the concept of existing, because those are thoughts! Example: you could be programmed by a higher being to say, I think, therefore I am. That's a possibility! In that case, you don't exist, because you are not really thinking, but only following a script. Because it's a possibility, according to that logic, you cannot accept it as truth.

Conclusion: One cannot know ANYTHING for certain, even one's own ability to think as poof of existence. I see two solutions to this paradox.

1. Because one cannot know what is real, what is real is irrelevant. What matters are the perceived, subjective consequences of experience and interaction. Real, or imagined. If one accepts human experience as limited to subjectivity, then objectivity has no meaning, and can be disregarded as moot. Therefore, because pure objective fact has no meaning, as it cannot be interacted with on any level, we can only hope for high probability of universal truth, not certainty. In most applications, this is what the word objective, as used in human language, means.

2. We are using a language which is designed for interpersonal communication. The fact that there is a word objective, means that it does exist, within our frame of reference. Because absolute certainty does not exists in this common reference, our language does not address this issue. Therefore, to state that objectivity cannot exists is ignoring the true definition of the word, rendering this discussion moot.

Now If you respond with something along the lines of, "this is my own personal illusion, this is how I think it is, therefore it is to me," you did not comprehend my post. I am not talking about what is, and what is not, I am talking about our fundamental inability to know anything for certain. Therefore, to try and find any certainties is frivolous. Well then? What are we supposed to do if we can't know anything for sure? I'll give two examples:

1. I have class in one hour, assuming my subjective interpretation of time is the same as that of my professor. I must cross 4 streets to get there, I cannot know for sure if I will be run over, and killed on my way. By the way, what is death really? I have never died, how do I know that will happen if I impact a 4,000lb SUV at 40mph? I also think, but don't know that if I don't attend class, I will fail. What if I was wrong that it's only four blocks, what if it has changed to 100,000,000? What if the world doesn't exist in the first place? What do I do?

I go to class. Why? Because certainty doesn't matter. What matters is trial and error. What matters is probability. What matters is that the universe has been subjectively objective for the 24 years of my existence. This is similar to how all animals live. What works, what doesn't? Not what is real? What isn't. That doesn't matter. What matters is the subjective satisfaction I subjectively feel from thinking that the A I received is still considered the subjective standard of subjective success.

Species which ask themselves, "I see a large predator closing distance very fast. It looks like it want's to eat me for lunch, but how do I know it isn't my imagination, or that my subjective view of threatening body language is different for this particularly large and fast creature?" are selected by nature not to pass on their genetic makeup.

This is why the "fight or flight" aspect of the peripheral nervous system is both necessary, and observed in most all animals. The ability to discuss philosophy over coffee at Starbucks, while nice, is not.

We are given (from God, or nature, or both) the GIFT of a large prefrontal cortex. Let's not offend anyone by using it to say that both it, and the billions of years of existence, are not real. Ironic if you ask me. But hey, you are more than entitled to your belief! That's the beauty of it! However, hypercritically and passive-aggressively forcing your belief on others will get earn you a negative reaction. Refer to Newton's 3rd law of motion, which I believe is applicable here.

Oh yeh! Example 2:
I want to ask a girl out on a date. I cannot be certain she will say yes. I (sometimes ) have the guts to ask. Why? :thumbup:
Hopefully this less rhetorical example will illustrate my point. I'm no philosopher but I'll say this. "I feel bad, therefore I don't repeat. I feel good, therefore I do." To me, that's whats important. If thinking everything is an illusion makes you happy, great. Just don't ever test it (for your sake), or build elevators (for my sake).

One last little experiment: (THIS IS RHETORICAL. DON'T DO IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD) may he be praised.

If the vitality of oxygen is imaginary, why not test it by putting a plastic bag over your head? Because the *possible* risks outweigh the benefit of "knowing." If this is your answer, you have just invalidated your claim. If you don't try it, you also invalidate your claim. Because you are using an external, and possibly illusory *probability* that this will hurt you in influencing your actions. Therefore, by the COMMON and INTENDED definition of objective truth, that you decided this would *probably* be ill-fated based on a collection of subjective data (which by definition, is then considered objective) was valid, is an example of what the other posters meant.

Please reply if you disagree!! Seriously, I love a good debate, I'm not being sarcastic (it's so hard to convey tone with text). And everyone here seems very well informed. I also think there is a lot of potential to your proposition, it just seems a little underdeveloped.

For example, I read a theory on how in many equations, T (time) will cancel out. The theory was how time is not a fundamental quantity, but a human construct. There were some serious flaws in his argument, but without wrong ideas, there are no right ideas and inspiration for those right ideas. I think Einstein said something like that, but I'm not gonna try to quote him verbatim. I read through the whole thread and both sides had some great points. This is my point. Sorry if anything came off as a personal attack... I was trying to remain ...omg I'm going to say it...objective. :thumbup:

p.s. How can you explicitly say that what you say is true, when your main argument is that there are no truths other than individual existence? Why waste your time trying the impossible (convince imaginary beings of something that's only true for you, because you cannot know there are others who have the capacity to be convinced.) I didn't follow.

 

[JEL]

What matters is the subjective satisfaction I subjectively feel from thinking that the A I received is still considered the subjective standard of subjective success.

Exactly
The only thing that matters is what you... BELIEVE!
(that's what I believe anyway )

Now If you respond with something along the lines of, "this is my own personal illusion, this is how I think it is, therefore it is to me," you did not comprehend my post. I am not talking about what is, and what is not, I am talking about our fundamental inability to know anything for certain. Therefore, to try and find any certainties is frivolous. Well then? What are we supposed to do if we can't know anything for sure?

I can't/won't tell you what you are supposed to do, since that would make me god or god-like or atleast pretentious.

You know if you are self-aware. And if you are, then maybe you'll know more in the future than you do now, or maybe you won't.
I don't believe myself that I know the true and full objective 'truth'. And as a logical (well, according to MY logic anyway ) consequence of that, if I don't know the truth now, then I also can't deny that I might know it in 1 hour from now.

 

[2Gm over cxc]

Ok, I think I understand what your saying. And I think I agree with you! I suppose my problem comes when this idea is extended to more practical matters, and in that we may be using different definitions.

In the elevator example, would you agree with the following:

"While I cannot know for certain the physical parameters needed to design a safe, functional elevator, what I do know is that these variables have been tested by a large collection of individuals. Regardless of the precise certainty of these measurements as accurately describing our universe, the time-tested probability that this is more true than not, is enough to design a safe elevator. Therefore, I disregard certainty as something which can be achieved, and will place my faith into the probability, and lack of evidence to the contrary, when dealing with life choices and consequences. However, in the pursuit of knowledge, I must hold true to this belief, and question everything we believe to be true."

If I understand your proposition correctly, then I would also add that this idea is CRUCIAL to the advancement of our collective understanding. If one does not think beyond the status-quo, then advancement is not possible. I also think that this mindset is necessary to counter those who aggressively fight to maintain this status-quo. Your example of Galileo was excellent. Another example would be Einstein's relativity. He questioned a universal "truth" and found that the most fundamental physical variables are just that, variable. Relative too. Again, my issue is when this idea is projected onto what I believe to be the wrong subject. But then again, the measurement of acceleration due to gravity uses mathematics. This is a human construct, which only describes a physical observation relative to our physical language (math). As humans, we are limited to our understanding. It appears we can only be certain about something within the boundaries of a language that we create. Another way of saying this is that we form objective truth using, and within the medium of subjective language and perspective.

I think then a large portion of this debate comes down to semantics. I think we first need to agree on the multiple definitions of the word objective, truth, and fact. Because you are right, on the most fundamental level, these words appear meaningless. I would therefore say that these words hold a condition to their meaning. An analogy would be rounding numbers in math and physics. Pi, for example, is vital to both theoretical and applied mathematics. It must be rounded, however, to be used. After a certain point, the remaining numbers become insignificant in application. Therefore, no equation using pi can be 100% accurate (unless they cancel!). But as a practical matter, this does not matter. Would you agree? I think that's what your saying.

Another example would be in adding velocities:

Using Newtonian physics, w= u + v. This is accurate enough when the velocities involved are significantly smaller than c. The result can be considered "true" for application. When the speeds begin approaching c, or the distances and angles involved require extreme precision, one must factor in special relativity: w= (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2). I read that GPS satellites, for example, would not be accurate enough to use without factoring in relativity. (Although it may also use general relativity, don't remember). The latter is more true than the former. However the former is true enough in most cases that it is considered "true." I suppose we use true as more of a description of outcome. Did the train arrive on schedule, yes or no. If yes, then the engineering was "true" and "objective," even if technically it was not.

Do you agree with all this? Or did I miss your point? I really do find it very interesting! :tiphat:

 

[JEL]

@2Gm over cxc;

Yes, I agree with what I perceive to be your notion that in everyday life it becomes less relevant if the observed world is what it seems like or if it's something else. If in the morning on your way to work you believe you're in an elevator then for all intents and purposes you ARE in an elevator, and then later when you get home and have time to philosophize you can always question if you really were in an elevator or if it was all just an illusion or hallucination or something else.

Even if all is but a dream within a dream, there's no inherent reason not to go with the flow
(I believe Edgar Allan Poe said something similar: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/eapoe/bl-eapoe-dreamwithin.htm)

 

[insanity]

"While I cannot know for certain the physical parameters needed to design a safe, functional elevator, what I do know is that these variables have been tested by a large collection of individuals. Regardless of the precise certainty of these measurements as accurately describing our universe, the time-tested probability that this is more true than not, is enough to design a safe elevator. Therefore, I disregard certainty as something which can be achieved, and will place my faith into the probability, and lack of evidence to the contrary, when dealing with life choices and consequences. However, in the pursuit of knowledge, I must hold true to this belief, and question everything we believe to be true."

You hit the nail on the head with that. Science makes no claim to knowing ultimate or absolute reality. It deals with the constraints of what is knowable at any given time-frame. That is why our understanding of the solar system and the cosmos has evolved greatly parallel to technological advancement.

The point of science is to make better and more predictive models of phenomena. In the elevator example, we can say with high degrees of certainty that we understand the mechanics of elevators and how they work. We are so certain that when we build them, they work (often) flawlessly. However, there is always the possibility (however remote) that something outside of the closed system is what really drives elevators.

All we have to work with is observation, reason, and calculation, all of which are subject to different kinds of bias. The point of the scientific method is to minimize the impact of theses biases and to openly admit them so that others can critique our methodology or conclusions. It's by no means a perfect system, but given the alternatives, I'll take the open system which acknowledges uncertainty to the closed ones that claim the absolutes.