From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 11:02 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 09:17 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:25 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're a deranged individual when you think you're making some type of point.

All you've said is, yes, coming up with an idea and trying to consider if it's true is a process used in science/religion. That's what philosophy is, unless you have other grander definitions.

Philosophy is coming up with ideas and seeking to know if it's correct. Simply, the study/search of knowledge.

The fundamental flaw in what you don't grasp. In scientific fields, they don't proclaim things are definitively true in the way described. Religions will, and that's a key point of difference.

No philosopher pretends or claims to know what is true. Philosophy questions everything, even itself.

The method of making a hypothesis to getting a consensus is the same method that religious people use. This shows that philosophy is correct in stating that induction and deduction are flawed and can lead to flawed results, so a group of people agreeing on an outcome of induction or deduction doesn't validate the results.

So you're saying that all your posts about the US government being evil and all that conspiracy bullshit you post are just part of your own personal religion? why do you ask for proof to contradict you if you don't believe in evidence?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 11:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 11:23 AM by gall.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 07:15 AM)I and I Wrote:  So wait, A bunch of guys coming up with ideas then agreeing on something is considered scientific, but a group of guys sitting around and coming up with ideas in another area is not considered scientific?

Philosophy has showed a long time ago that using logic when applied to things like science and religion can lead to false claims and complete and total bullshit.

Just because humans sit around and come up with nice stories about how things on earth happened and just because a group is convinced (peer review) that something is real or true.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING REAL OR TRUE WHETHER ITS CALLED RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

Philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.

The idea that someone can make something up, then use logic (there are many faults in logic) to confirm what he has made up, then he goes and convinces others that what he has made up is true, the idea that science is based on the same method that spawned religion is completely hilarious.

you seriously think you can try what you are in this post and not get treated like a crying child?

Do you know what science is? The basic definition?

It is not just about making up something and convincing others. It is about suggesting something based on stimuli, then testing to see if your right, then further testing to make sure, then peer review to let them test it to see if you missed something, then you publish and it gets further review. It is not a bunch of guys sitting around guessing the whole time. You guess in your hypothesis, then you test and consider and put it out there to see if it will stand up to professional scrutiny. If it does and it is seen enough times and accurately kept track of it is possible that a theory may be developed from that period and work MAYBE.

I really am not sure why you don't seem to be able to figure out what 100's of thousands of scientists and students from about the 4th grade on in most schools should know.

Science and philosophy are not the same discipline... When you compare the two like this you just seem like you don't want to learn just fight.

your ideas here or anywhere are no more or less valid even based on your own words.

What makes something real in most human cases is perception not science.

I might have missed something but who is saying science and religion ride in the same cart? If and when they do just like in Dune the whirlwind will follow and consume us all.

religion rides in its own cart called ignorance by the way. Science is the light trying to find people in that ignorance and show them the way back to reason and the reality they actually live in with the rest of us. Science is what kept me from dying from rabies as a boy and I promise god was not getting all those shots in his stomach I WAS.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Im not comparing science to philosophy.

I am pointing out the problems in the methods used in science. Induction and deduction have problems that philosophers have talked about for centuries.

If a guy visits one witch doctor and gets info on his ailing grandmother, then visits several more which doctors, then he uses his own judgement in deciding what is the best advice, this is a logical approach. However philosophers have already pointed out that logic even though properly done is not synonymous with a correct or factual result.

A group of guys sitting around using all they know (just like the man visiting which doctors) in assessing a reason for something, then by consensus (peer review) a result is agreed upon. This also is logic, and like the guy visiting witch doctors his result is not going to be factual solely on the methods that were used.

A hypothesis comes from a bias, influenced state, and so does the conclusion (peer review).

Have you read Thomas Kuhn? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5m9x-Sjugo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 05:27 PM
Re: RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 09:17 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:25 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're a deranged individual when you think you're making some type of point.

All you've said is, yes, coming up with an idea and trying to consider if it's true is a process used in science/religion. That's what philosophy is, unless you have other grander definitions.

Philosophy is coming up with ideas and seeking to know if it's correct. Simply, the study/search of knowledge.

The fundamental flaw in what you don't grasp. In scientific fields, they don't proclaim things are definitively true in the way described. Religions will, and that's a key point of difference.

No philosopher pretends or claims to know what is true. Philosophy questions everything, even itself.

The method of making a hypothesis to getting a consensus is the same method that religious people use. This shows that philosophy is correct in stating that induction and deduction are flawed and can lead to flawed results, so a group of people agreeing on an outcome of induction or deduction doesn't validate the results.

The first paragraph is as valid for scientist.... And really it's most or only credible. There's certainly those who break the mold in each field.

On the next point... The End process isn't what makes a conclusion valid.. It's not the "consensus" that matters. That's the low tier skill pattern seeing of them sharing a begging and end.

The difference and whole reason for scientific value, is the process. The value of the method is embodied in these self testing process... The very value you just hyped philosophy with having. The issues you see wouldn't be as prevalent if you lessened the generalized external view you exhibit.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-09-2013, 05:54 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Science and religion unlike philosophy do not question their methods. A scientist doesn't question the scientific method scientists only question results, but not the underlying structure of the scientific method. Religious people as well do not question the method they use for coming up with gods, they only question the results sometimes which causes splits into different sects.

Philosophy in questioning logic and showing it's flaws shows the flaws in both science and religious reasoning.

The video I posted is a short video followed by a second one. It outlines the philosophical approach to exposing the flaws in the scientific method, most notably Induction and deduction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 06:31 PM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Congrats... I watched a video saying your run of the mill, normal, scientists don't challenge concepts(paradigms)

And ends claim unexplained on peer pressure and death of old regimes are only responsible for the historical change.. With no evidence/reason for the claims(I'll grant then it's a summary video)

But funny... He mentioned, not all paradigm shifts follow this break the method pattern. He notes modern molecular biology doesn't... I would add that's actually occurred again these days with further shifts like grasps of quantum and string ideas that altered scientific I understanding in modern times after this guys book on science history was unfolded.

Why should I continue?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Kuhn and Popper have some points worth considering. I and I's consideration amounts to "trololol science r flawed I am so smrt".

(26-09-2013 05:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  I am pointing out the problems in the methods used in science. Induction and deduction have problems that philosophers have talked about for centuries.

How did the philosophers reach that conclusion?

Was it...
... through induction and deduction?

(26-09-2013 05:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  If a guy visits one witch doctor and gets info on his ailing grandmother, then visits several more which doctors, then he uses his own judgement in deciding what is the best advice, this is a logical approach. However philosophers have already pointed out that logic even though properly done is not synonymous with a correct or factual result.

And if, under all possible testing he can perform, one treatment works best so far as he can tell, then he will reach a conclusion. That conclusion is the best available to him. In what sense is it meaningful to say "well it still might not be true"? Of what use is that caveat? It cannot inform either his conclusion or his actions...

(26-09-2013 05:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  A group of guys sitting around using all they know (just like the man visiting which doctors) in assessing a reason for something, then by consensus (peer review) a result is agreed upon. This also is logic, and like the guy visiting witch doctors his result is not going to be factual solely on the methods that were used.

And if, under all possible tests they think to perform, one theory produces more consistent predictions and more useful applications so far as they can determine, in what sense is it meaningful to say "well it still might not mean anything"?

Have you been entirely ignoring the many dozens of times, in this thread and others, that everybody has acknowledged this? That scientific conclusions are absolutely always implicitly accompanied by the proviso: as best we can presently tell?

Are scientists human? Yes. Do they, therefore, possess human fallibility? Yes. That is trivial. Might their methods be flawed? Yes. Again: a trivial observation. The central question remains: if there are "problems" with scientific method(s) - so what? What might we conclude? How might we respond? In what way should that conclusion inform our actions? Of what use is that knowledge?

...

Let us consider Kuhn. Kuhn is scientifically illiterate and historically ignorant. The posted video is self-satisfied and disingenuous.

"Paradigm shifts" are anything but. ALL science is incremental. Conclusions rely on data. More data lead to changing conclusions. In popular understanding we conceive of "shifts" in terms of one person's work; this is, ironically, extremely reductive. Neither Copernicus nor Einstein nor Darwin were working along unique lines. (And Kepler is far more important than Copernicus, in any case).

Let's consider Newtonian (a misnomer) mechanics. Does Lagrange's work constitute a "shift"? Does Hamilton's work constitute a "shift? Consider quantum mechanics: at what point does it constitute a "shift"? Is it Planck? Einstein? Thompson? Rutherford? Bohr? Dirac? Schrodinger? Heisenberg? De Broglie?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 06:26 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
whether or not science (the methods used to reach conclusions) is incremental is a different issue, I don't see how it is incremental in any way.

You asked what sense it makes to say that the methods used in science still might not be true......are you implying that we should just believe that they are true and move on? Drinking Beverage

Science is held in to a standard different than religion but I don't see any difference in the methods that people use in reaching their conclusions. A religious person worshipping in a church doesn't question the logic used to reach the conclusions of his fellow worshippers just like the guy in a lab who doesn't question the methods in the logic used to reach his conclusions.

Both parties start out by making an observation (hypothesis), this observation is biased towards past observations (society) and people in his society. This method of learning is the only method we have so far WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

Philosophy questions itself all the time, philosophers love attacking other philosophers. They also question their methods. Continental Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy and Ontology do this all the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 06:36 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2013 07:11 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  whether or not science (the methods used to reach conclusions) is incremental is a different issue, I don't see how it is incremental in any way.

You asked what sense it makes to say that the methods used in science still might not be true......are you implying that we should just believe that they are true and move on? Drinking Beverage

Science is held in to a standard different than religion but I don't see any difference in the methods that people use in reaching their conclusions. A religious person worshipping in a church doesn't question the logic used to reach the conclusions of his fellow worshippers just like the guy in a lab who doesn't question the methods in the logic used to reach his conclusions.

Both parties start out by making an observation (hypothesis), this observation is biased towards past observations (society) and people in his society. This method of learning is the only method we have so far WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

Philosophy questions itself all the time, philosophers love attacking other philosophers. They also question their methods. Continental Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy and Ontology do this all the time.

You don't see a difference... And you also see a statement of "not writing off a methods" as equal to support.

If there is a trend, it may be that you are making false connections more than one should.

Science does question itself and it's methods. The video you showed even states it... The "normal" scientists don't though according to it. A "normal" philosopher may not question much out of their field of inquiry also.

A great detail about studying particles is questioning how valid "observation" is on studying. They willingly admit abs have been challenging the concept because particles appear to do something different in our view when changed. Science fields do question how it's clear this is our living evolved minds way of viewing... But that it isn't all there.

But maybe you think it's not equal.. Since I thought I saw you make some claim quantum physics is nonsense in another thread.

If you looked in the early days of science... Yes it operated very similar to religious movements. Dismissing heliocentric view, germ theory, but that's when a lot of people still clung to the religious idea that they know things for certain. Things aren't on that same layer of low level reasoning for all scientific fields anymore.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  whether or not science (the methods used to reach conclusions) is incremental is a different issue, I don't see how it is incremental in any way.

It is necessarily incremental. Consequential to which, a narrative of "paradigm shifts" is simplistic, reductive, and wholly inaccurate.

(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  You asked what sense it makes to say that the methods used in science still might not be true......are you implying that we should just believe that they are true and move on?

Hardly. Merely that the strong converse - "we know they are not true" - is an utterly useless conclusion. I repeat the question, since you in no way address it: if there are problems with scientific methods - the nature of which are well-known to scientists anyway - so what? How might we react? In what way should that knowledge inform our actions? What, then, should we do?

(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Science is held in to a standard different than religion but I don't see any difference in the methods that people use in reaching their conclusions. A religious person worshipping in a church doesn't question the logic used to reach the conclusions of his fellow worshippers just like the guy in a lab who doesn't question the methods in the logic used to reach his conclusions.

Citation needed. I've met a few scientists in my time. They're well aware that what they engage in is a human method.

And even the religious self-reflect.

(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Both parties start out by making an observation (hypothesis), this observation is biased towards past observations (society) and people in his society. This method of learning is the only method we have so far WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

Rather, reasoning begins with premises, of the religious variety, which are not to be question, and of the scientific variety, which are intended to be questioned.

Are you implying that philosophy isn't based on observation and reason?

(27-09-2013 06:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Philosophy questions itself all the time, philosophers love attacking other philosophers. They also question their methods. Continental Philosophy, Analytical Philosophy and Ontology do this all the time.

You seem to be labouring under the bizarre impression that science and scientists do not engage in either self-reflection or confrontation. I am not sure where such a fundamental misconception arises.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: