From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 11:04:53 MDT
[quote from: rhinoceros on 2002-06-08 at 14:47:25]
[Hermit 1] In order to comply with the scientific method, as currently employed, all things are at least in principle testable and falsifiable- including the scientific method.
[rhinoceros] This is interesting. It should be so, but how can the validity of the scientific method itself (hypothesis - testing - theory) be proved false inside its own framework? I cannot think of any way.
[Hermit 2] When it is agreed that it is deficient (has happened many times - see the FAQ), produces incorrect results (possibility of Popperian falsification), or concurrence is reached that a superior method has been developed (self-referential, this is the essences of the scientific method).
[Hermit 1, quote from the Lexicon] 1. Truth: Godelian incompleteness and Popperian falsifiability together necessitate that outside of a formal system of limited application, a "truth", to have any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth to be rejected.
This implies that outside of formal systems, the truth of a thing is not an absolute, but encompasses a range of probabilities which will have varying truth values (i.e. from "false" through "insufficient evidence to adduce a truth value" to "true") depending on the evidence for or against such a thing.
[rhinoceros] Either my English is inadequate or this entry needs rewriting (most probably, both). To my knowledge, Goedel's Theorem says that *inside* a non-trivial axiomatic formal system we can formulate propositions which can be neither proved nor disproved. So, it is the formal system -- not the propositions -- which is incomplete, while the propositions mentioned above may be falsifiable outside the formal system (inside a broader one). Well... maybe this one is no better.
[Hermit 2] I'm not sure what the problem is. Truth is dependent on perspective (Einstein, Popper) and how well a "model" relates to perceive, communicable reality. Thus truth is related to the model, which in any real world case is non-trivial. Thus within the bounds of the defined model, there exist potential "truths" which cannot be expressed (from Goedel). Thus the "model" must be provisional, and will tend towards becoming to be true or false, but while a "model" can be absolutely invalidated by demonstrating that it produces incorrect predictions, it cannot be proven absolutely true (Hegel, Russell, Popper). A model which makes no predictions is not useful, and thus cannot be falsified (Russell, Popper). Such a model is inherently bereft of truth value.
[rhinoceros] One comment about faith, confidence, etc. Suppose that I have studied physics and I can solve partial differential equations involving the interaction of two quantum particles, but I find it difficult to solve problem involving even three particles. I "trust" that Hawking knows what he is talking about when he talks about the big bang, and I also trust that the experimental evidence published are correct and that they mean what they are supposed to mean, because I trust that they used the scientific method.
[Hermit 2] I would suggest that rather than "trusting" a person, you are relying on the peer review process to increase the truth-value of the assertions made by Hawking. While you might learn the math, this is an effective way to stay abreast of developments. It is certainly not failsafe but a probability. I remember an exiting Hawking lecture (just before he lost the ability to talk so late 70s) where he explained, "black holes have no hair [Hermit: i.e. do not radiate]." Today we are fairly sure that this is not so, and that the radiation is due to “Hawking radiation” - also predicted by Hawking.
[rhinoceros] However, when this subject comes up, we always talk about physics. In other sciences, there are many more contradictory and mutually exclusive theories promoted from academic institutions funded by various interest groups. We cannot interpret the data of every specific scientific field, so we usually have no choice but to accept the favorite of the media (or do some speculation and just take the oposite option). Another example is virians and politics. So, very often we form opinions and make decisions without any real scientific justification.
[Hermit 2] I like a few examples from Electrical Engineering where current flow is a mass of conflicting models. We use "Conventional Current" [hopelessly wrong, yet makes good predictions], "Electron Flow" [Not as wrong, makes better predictions] and a "Charge transfer" model [Good model (?) but not nearly as useful for rule of thumb predictions). Most fields have little "conflicts" like this buried somewhere. I would not suggest "the media" as a source for anything, indeed, experience has taught me that their need for simplicity and punchy sound bites means that the media are more likely to be in error than correct. So perhaps they could be used as a "dreadful warning" indicator. Look at what the media is saying, and then do the opposite <grin>.
[Hermit 2] I agree. What is needed is a rational political platform - but then what is rational? Some Virians are working on this.
[Walter] (see Greimas, ON MEANING, and Popper, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY and CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS)
[rhinoceros] A short comment about Karl Popper, the father of the principle of falsifiability. This great mind was something analogous to a grumpy art critic. My impression is that he was happy to destroy anyone's illusions about finding a general pattern in reality, and to take them back to the trial and error method.
[Hermit 2] This is another very important point where Popper appears to be absolutely correct. The Universe does not have a "general pattern." The Universe simply exists. It is our minds which determine the existence of some patterns - and preclude the existence of others. Apropos of something, so far as I see it, there is nothing at all wrong with grumpiness. It appears to be an effective protection method to keep fools at bay. Thus grumpiness can be seen as a consequence of inflicting fools on people with a low fool toleration capacity.
[rhinoceros] He mostly argued against Platonism, Hegelianism and Marxism, as well as against Historicism and Psychanalysis. However, while arguing against the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivism (where he used to be an occasional participant), he did not hesitate to say that metaphysics had produced useful results, because the beliefs about primary elements and primary causes in nature had led to real scientific theories. Eventually, the Vienna Circle crumbled under Goedel's Theorem, but the grumpy old man had already taken his distance.
[Hermit 2] The above is a vast simplification of a complex number of issues, incredibly complex people and history/myth with a slashing stroke. Certainly there is ammunition here for several thesii.
[rhinoceros] So, if you ever need to develop an original theory, stay away from Popper for some months when you need intution, but don't fail to take him seriously into account during the verification.
[Hermit 2] I tend to concur on both points. But don't just advocate avoiding Popper, avoid all evaluation when creating and proposing – and be merciless when evaluating ideas produced on that basis. It is best to clearly identify the thinking modes in use at any time. I find a combination of "Mind Mapping" and de Bono's apparently simpleminded, but remarkably effective "Six Thinking Hats"* very helpful in this regard.
Regards
Hermit
*The thought modes of the "Six thinking Hats" process:
The White Hat calls for information known or needed.
The Yellow hat symbolizes brightness and optimism.
The Black hat is judgment—the devil’s advocate or why something may not work.
The Red Hat signifies feelings, hunches, and intuition.
The Green hat focuses on creativity: the possibilities, alternatives, and new ideas.
The Blue Hat is used to manage the thinking process.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25551>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT