Scientific Method Problem

[Reluctantly]

Let's say you have an object known as "changeling". It's called this because the object seems to change dynamically within itself, constantly changing between one of many complex and hard to define states.

Then let's say someone wants to study this object in order to understand it. They want to use The Scientific Method in order to narrow down the behavior of this object.

Experiment A
So say this person (Person A) attempts to put the object under various conditions in order to figure out something about the object. Say they put it in a large metal box, completely enclosed to make it pitch black and find that this particular changeling always goes to one particular state - State A. This person repeatedly finds this to be the case. So this person asserts that this State A will result from the object.

Experiment B
Then the person puts the changeling in another experiment. Say it's put in another metal box, completely enclosed with a very bright white light. The changeling goes to another state - State B. This repeatedly occurs, so this person also asserts that this state B will result from the experiment.

Person B then Checks for Repeatability
Say now another person (Person B) takes that same changeling and attempts to do Experiment A. They find that a different state emerges from Experiment A - State C. He concludes that Experiment B seems to have changed the fundamentals of the changeling, making the Experiment A null and void. He then tries Experiment B again and finds yet another state emerging, State D, making Experiment B null and void.

Person B then wonders about other changelings. So he tries the experiments on other changelings and finds again, different states emerging from the experiments and that doing one experiment will change the outcome of another.

Person B's Plight
Person B then reports the findings to Person A. But person A isn't willing to accept that nothing has been learned about the object because that would seem absurd. Person A then finds changelings that will emerge to a predictable state and asserts that he knows something about these changelings. Person A decides he/she will and can reasonably use this as a foundation for further study.

Conclusively
What does Person A really know though? Should Person A admit that nothing has been learned about the object? And if Person A does, where does he/she begin to learn about the changeling? Person A needs to start somewhere... Is Person A then abusing The Scientific Method or utilizing it?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Scientific Method:

1) Formulate hypothesis
2) Theorize what data would be required to invalidate hypothesis
3) Set up an experiment and test
4) If data is manifest, the hypothesis is incorrect

 

[Reluctantly]

Scientific Method:

1) Formulate hypothesis
2) Theorize what data would be required to invalidate hypothesis
3) Set up an experiment and test
4) If data is manifest, the hypothesis is incorrect

Okay, so then you're saying Person A doesn't know anything about the changeling?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Okay, so then you're saying Person A doesn't know anything about the changeling?

I didn't read your post. Regrettably, I was too lazy...

(time passes)

I just read it. They should formulate a new hypothesis.

 

[joal0503]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science

 

[Reluctantly]

I didn't read your post. Regrettably, I was too lazy...

(time passes)

I just read it. They should formulate a new hypothesis.

Ummmm, hmmm. I can't understand why the questions don't intrigue you. Maybe nobody really cares, but me.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Ummmm, hmmm. I can't understand why the questions don't intrigue you. Maybe nobody really cares, but me.

A great many things intrigues me. ^_^

 

[Duxwing]

Let's say you have an object known as "changeling". It's called this because the object seems to change dynamically within itself, constantly changing between one of many complex and hard to define states.

Then let's say someone wants to study this object in order to understand it. They want to use The Scientific Method in order to narrow down the behavior of this object.

Experiment A
So say this person (Person A) attempts to put the object under various conditions in order to figure out something about the object. Say they put it in a large metal box, completely enclosed to make it pitch black and find that this particular changeling always goes to one particular state - State A. This person repeatedly finds this to be the case. So this person asserts that this State A will result from the object.

Experiment B
Then the person puts the changeling in another experiment. Say it's put in another metal box, completely enclosed with a very bright white light. The changeling goes to another state - State B. This repeatedly occurs, so this person also asserts that this state B will result from the experiment.

Person B then Checks for Repeatability
Say now another person (Person B) takes that same changeling and attempts to do Experiment A. They find that a different state emerges from Experiment A - State C. He concludes that Experiment B seems to have changed the fundamentals of the changeling, making the Experiment A null and void. He then tries Experiment B again and finds yet another state emerging, State D, making Experiment B null and void.

Person B then wonders about other changelings. So he tries the experiments on other changelings and finds again, different states emerging from the experiments and that doing one experiment will change the outcome of another.

Person B's Plight
Person B then reports the findings to Person A. But person A isn't willing to accept that nothing has been learned about the object because that would seem absurd. Person A then finds changelings that will emerge to a predictable state and asserts that he knows something about these changelings. Person A decides he/she will and can reasonably use this as a foundation for further study.

Conclusively
What does Person A really know though? Should Person A admit that nothing has been learned about the object? And if Person A does, where does he/she begin to learn about the changeling? Person A needs to start somewhere... Is Person A then abusing The Scientific Method or utilizing it?

The scientific method-- the only way to gain empirical knowledge about the universe-- rests upon the assumption that objects behave in a predictable manner; ergo, objects that are unpredictable cannot be known. Provided that no pattern emerges in the data gained by performing further tests, the object will remain an unknowable mystery.

-Duxwing

 

[Da Blob]

Ho hum!

Despite all of the wonders and glories of Science Fiction, real scientific research is a dull, ploddingly-slow process - if accepted research methodology is adhered to. It is a matter of creating an artificial environment well insulated from reality, then attempting to identify a single variable, that can be isolated, that can be manipulated, that can be measured on a standardized scale. If such a variable is found, then one tests its variance as a statistical correlation of another variable.
Scientific truth is measured by a wide range of sigma and nothing else.

The scenario presented in the OP could be simply an example of the many phenomena known to exist, that simply are not reducible and therefore beyond the intended scope of the scientific method.

 

[joal0503]

if you took a scientific encyclopedia of information we know today, and travel to any point 500 + years back into human history...

what would be the most likely outcome?

A. They burn you, and denounce you as some form of evil being.
B. You become a god.

 

[Vrecknidj]

if ... and travel to any point 500 + years back into human history...

Let me know when you get this procedure worked out. I'll pay good money for a trip.

 

[Duxwing]

Ho hum!

Despite all of the wonders and glories of Science Fiction, real scientific research is a dull, ploddingly-slow process - if accepted research methodology is adhered to. It is a matter of creating an artificial environment well insulated from reality, then attempting to identify a single variable, that can be isolated, that can be manipulated, that can be measured on a standardized scale. If such a variable is found, then one tests its variance as a statistical correlation of another variable.
Scientific truth is measured by a wide range of sigma and nothing else.

The scenario presented in the OP could be simply an example of the many phenomena known to exist, that simply are not reducible and therefore beyond the intended scope of the scientific method.

Scientific experiments are not designed to insulate the observed system from "reality," but rather from external, unmeasured forces that would otherwise invalidate the experiment. For example, studying the evaporation rate of water is futile if a lightning bolt hits the bucket in which the water stands: how you would know whether the sudden disappearance of the water resulted from ambient temperature or ambient lightning? Indeed, scientists simplify and control the conditions in which their experiments are conducted because of the limits of deductive reasoning and available resources. In short, since we can't solve the greatest problem ("What is the universe and how does it work?") we solve smaller, simpler problems instead and integrate the results from our many different ventures.

Also, what phenomena cannot be reduced?

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

@Reluctantly
Theories like spontaneous generation were widely held for hundreds of years, until more accurate theories were devised and proven, likewise your changeling may be some alien device that's intentionally designed to resist being reverse engineered, but that doesn't mean we can't, it's like how in cryptology there's no such thing as a perfect cipher, the required computations required to crack it may be astronomical, but the number is always finite.

If it wasn't the cipher would contain more information than the universe and that's just not possible; Da Blob believes the human mind is like this but there's an easy way to prove him wrong, just imagine dots, one dot, two dots, four dots, ten dots, forty dots, one hundred dots, five hundred dots, two thousand dots, if you made it that far without using some form of abstract representation (like sorting the dots into arrangements and using those shapes to represent groups of dots) then you're a genius, but in any case there's clearly a limit to this, the human brain (though incredibly adaptable) indisputably has a finite amount of random access memory.

Infinity is just a word to us, an abstract concept, we're incapable of actually visualising it directly, because if we could then we could break ciphers with ease and secure digital transactions would be absolutely impossible, yet the world's digital economy remains.

 

[Etheri]

The scientific method-- the only way to gain empirical knowledge about the universe-- rests upon the assumption that objects behave in a predictable manner; ergo, objects that are unpredictable cannot be known. Provided that no pattern emerges in the data gained by performing further tests, the object will remain an unknowable mystery.

-Duxwing

-the only way to gain empirical knowledge? I don't think 'the only way' is rather liberal speech?
-Define predictable? QM states objects are unpredictable outside of chance distributions. Does this mean [the universe built from these objects] cannot be known?

Spoiler

Well, yes. However, the universe built from these objects cannot be known *outside of statistical means*. And even 'exact' sciences are really not all that exact. Because we don't really 'know' anything, we can only approach. All of our input is, fundamentally, defined through chances. All of our output is, by result, defined through chances aswell. Luckily, on the large scale these chances often just don't seem to matter... Yet equally often, they do!

 

[Duxwing]

-the only way to gain empirical knowledge? I don't think 'the only way' is rather liberal speech?
-Define predictable? QM states objects are unpredictable outside of chance distributions. Does this mean [the universe built from these objects] cannot be known?

Spoiler

Well, yes. However, the universe built from these objects cannot be known *outside of statistical means*. And even 'exact' sciences are really not all that exact. Because we don't really 'know' anything, we can only approach. All of our input is, fundamentally, defined through chances. All of our output is, by result, defined through chances aswell. Luckily, on the large scale these chances often just don't seem to matter... Yet equally often, they do!

Science is a system of thought derived from the Empiricist and Rationalist schools of thought that was designed to produce statements about reality. All other non-science methods inevitably contain problems (unfalsifiable hypotheses, for example) that science does not. Science, on the other hand (provided that its minimal assumptions are true), is the perfect way to glean knowledge about reality: it has no flaws because it was designed from the ground up with that purpose in mind.

As for your "chances" argument, the behavior of large bodies is predictable: balls drop, bombs explode, and stars burn in the sky. The properties of the part do not necessarily conform to the properties of the whole.

-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

The scientific method-- the only way to gain empirical knowledge about the universe-- rests upon the assumption that objects behave in a predictable manner; ergo, objects that are unpredictable cannot be known. Provided that no pattern emerges in the data gained by performing further tests, the object will remain an unknowable mystery.

-Duxwing

Okay, so does Person A know anything about the changeling? Please answer the question because there are sciences that operate like this and those who argue they are invalid seem to get shot down or ignored. I'd really like to see what reasons people have for saying he/she does or doesn't know anything.

Ho hum!

Despite all of the wonders and glories of Science Fiction, real scientific research is a dull, ploddingly-slow process - if accepted research methodology is adhered to. It is a matter of creating an artificial environment well insulated from reality, then attempting to identify a single variable, that can be isolated, that can be manipulated, that can be measured on a standardized scale. If such a variable is found, then one tests its variance as a statistical correlation of another variable.
Scientific truth is measured by a wide range of sigma and nothing else.

The scenario presented in the OP could be simply an example of the many phenomena known to exist, that simply are not reducible and therefore beyond the intended scope of the scientific method.

Well, it doesn't exactly mean the changeling can't be understood. What I was attempting to portray is that application of The Scientific Method, in this case, doesn't seem to create a clear starting point for gaining knowledge about the changeling, as it's a violation on repeatability.

if you took a scientific encyclopedia of information we know today, and travel to any point 500 + years back into human history...

what would be the most likely outcome?

A. They burn you, and denounce you as some form of evil being.
B. You become a god.

Sure, where The Scientific Method produces repeatability, it would be quite useful. But that's not where this problem comes from.

Scientific experiments are not designed to insulate the observed system from "reality," but rather from external, unmeasured forces that would otherwise invalidate the experiment. For example, studying the evaporation rate of water is futile if a lightning bolt hits the bucket in which the water stands: how you would know whether the sudden disappearance of the water resulted from ambient temperature or ambient lightning? Indeed, scientists simplify and control the conditions in which their experiments are conducted because of the limits of deductive reasoning and available resources. In short, since we can't solve the greatest problem ("What is the universe and how does it work?") we solve smaller, simpler problems instead and integrate the results from our many different ventures.

Sure, but Experiments A and B always have the same conditions. The changeling however changed outside of each experiment, resulting in different results when either experiment is redone on the changeling.

Would you like to answer my questions now?

@Reluctantly
Theories like spontaneous generation were widely held for hundreds of years, until more accurate theories were devised and proven, likewise your changeling may be some alien device that's intentionally designed to resist being reverse engineered, but that doesn't mean we can't, it's like how in cryptology there's no such thing as a perfect cipher, the required computations required to crack it may be astronomical, but the number is always finite.

If it wasn't the cipher would contain more information than the universe and that's just not possible; Da Blob believes the human mind is like this but there's an easy way to prove him wrong, just imagine dots, one dot, two dots, four dots, ten dots, forty dots, one hundred dots, five hundred dots, two thousand dots, if you made it that far without using some form of abstract representation (like sorting the dots into arrangements and using those shapes to represent groups of dots) then you're a genius, but in any case there's clearly a limit to this, the human brain (though incredibly adaptable) indisputably has a finite amount of random access memory.

Infinity is just a word to us, an abstract concept, we're incapable of actually visualising it directly, because if we could then we could break ciphers with ease and secure digital transactions would be absolutely impossible, yet the world's digital economy remains.

I agree with you. But I'm not arguing that we couldn't understand the changeling. The problem is that in this case, the application of The Scientific Method invalids all repeatability about the changeling. Person A who then wants to understand the changeling does not know what experiment could be reliable.

So rather than Person A saying that he/she knows nothing, this person looks for changelings that show repeatability for the experiments and attempts to contain the changeling in an environment where all external forces are controlled. In some ways, this allows them to play God on the object. However, all that is learned about the object is then dependent on controlling that object's environment. The problem is that what is learned about this changeling says nothing about the changelings that had different conditions applied to them. And as soon as the changeling is set free, all that was learned is no longer repeatable.

So does Person A know anything about the changeling?

-the only way to gain empirical knowledge? I don't think 'the only way' is rather liberal speech?
-Define predictable? QM states objects are unpredictable outside of chance distributions. Does this mean [the universe built from these objects] cannot be known?

Spoiler

Well, yes. However, the universe built from these objects cannot be known *outside of statistical means*. And even 'exact' sciences are really not all that exact. Because we don't really 'know' anything, we can only approach. All of our input is, fundamentally, defined through chances. All of our output is, by result, defined through chances aswell. Luckily, on the large scale these chances often just don't seem to matter... Yet equally often, they do!

Statistical means doesn't actually provide knowing anything. In fact, it's subjective in that it assumes previous occurrences will say anything about the next one. Plus, say you have a 75% probability that an electron will end up within a certain range in an atom after a certain chemical reaction; well that 25% probability, if it occurs, doesn't predict where the electron will end up, except to say that it won't end up within that range. In that sense, this statistic doesn't say anything about the nature of the electron because if it knew about the electron it wouldn't require a statistic. What it knows is somewhat abstract and subjective.

Science is a system of thought derived from the Empiricist and Rationalist schools of thought that was designed to produce statements about reality. All other non-science methods inevitably contain problems (unfalsifiable hypotheses, for example) that science does not. Science, on the other hand (provided that its minimal assumptions are true), is the perfect way to glean knowledge about reality: it has no flaws because it was designed from the ground up with that purpose in mind.

As for your "chances" argument, the behavior of large bodies is predictable: balls drop, bombs explode, and stars burn in the sky. The properties of the part do not necessarily conform to the properties of the whole.

-Duxwing

Please reread my OP, carefully, and answer the questions I provided. I illustrated a problem that makes science questionable in certain applications. You saying science is a perfect way to glean knowledge about reality suggests this.

 

[Duxwing]

Okay, so does Person A know anything about the changeling? Please answer the question because there are sciences that operate like this and those who argue they are invalid seem to get shot down or ignored. I'd really like to see what reasons people have for saying he/she does or doesn't know anything.

First, a matter of surprised, incredulous curiosity: What sciences operate based on the idea that one can know the nature of things whose properties cannot be tested by experiment? Next, regarding the changeling: Person A knows only what happened in that experiment because he/she hasn't taken the final step of the scientific method: submission of conclusions for peer review. By applying a fresh set of eyes to the problem, doing so vastly reduces the odds that the quirks of the scientist(s) who conducted the experiment influenced the results. Therefore, Person A knows only the data gathered by his/her experiment, and nothing more.
[/quote]

Well, it doesn't exactly mean the changeling can't be understood. What I was attempting to portray is that application of The Scientific Method, in this case, doesn't seem to create a clear starting point for gaining knowledge about the changeling, as it's a violation on repeatability.

The Scientific Method assumes the repeatability of experiments. In fact, repeating an experiment is the core of the last step of the Scientific Method: peer review. If the changeling's behavior cannot be repeated (and nobody knows that) then no amount of experimentation will ever yield conclusive results. However, if the changeling changes its behavior according to an underlying mechanism-- especially one whose steps are reversible by some means-- then we can ascertain the mechanism through experiment and thereby understand the changeling itself by either eliminating the cause of the changes or studying these alterations in behavior as phenomena in themselves.

So rather than Person A saying that he/she knows nothing, this person looks for changelings that show repeatability for the experiments and attempts to contain the changeling in an environment where all external forces are controlled. In some ways, this allows them to play God on the object. However, all that is learned about the object is then dependent on controlling that object's environment. The problem is that what is learned about this changeling says nothing about the changelings that had different conditions applied to them. And as soon as the changeling is set free, all that was learned is no longer repeatable.

So does Person A know anything about the changeling?

Yes, they know what happens to the changeling under given circumstances-- no more, and no less. However, Person A can model the interaction of the changeling with individual components of the environment, and, assuming that an underlying mechanism to the changeling's behavior exists, can ultimately understand how the changeling will behave with any given thing. Ultimately, you've conflated the idea of how the changeling interacts with specific things in nature and the nature of the changeling itself. Water flows in different ways over different things, but it's still just water.

Statistical means doesn't actually provide knowing anything. In fact, it's subjective in that it assumes previous occurrences will say anything about the next one. Plus, say you have a 75% probability that an electron will end up within a certain range in an atom after a certain chemical reaction; well that 25% probability, if it occurs, doesn't predict where the electron will end up, except to say that it won't end up within that range. In that sense, this statistic doesn't say anything about the nature of the electron because if it knew about the electron it wouldn't require a statistic. What it knows is somewhat abstract and subjective.

Statistical knowledge is statistical, not absolute; however, statistical knowledge is still knowledge, albeit of a different kind. Also, the assumption that the nature of things will not change over time (e.g., electrons have a charge of -1 no matter where or when you are) belies all knowledge gathered by empirical trial; indeed, the epistemology of the Scientific method demands that all statements-- or systems of statements (Scientific Theories)-- be falsifiable by contrary data. In summary: As a wise man once said, "Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".

Please reread my OP, carefully, and answer the questions I provided. I illustrated a problem that makes science questionable in certain applications. You saying science is a perfect way to glean knowledge about reality suggests this.

Then allow me to reword my thesis. Science is the perfect way to gain knowledge about reality as the philosophy of Science assumes reality to be: monistic, physicalist, knowable, and stable.

-Duxwing

 

[s0cratus]

Scientific Method Problem:

The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
=====.
socratus

=

 

[Reluctantly]

First, a matter of surprised, incredulous curiosity: What sciences operate based on the idea that one can know the nature of things whose properties cannot be tested by experiment?

Any pseudoscience.

From wikipedia - List of topics characterized as pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

* Astrology
* Conversion therapy – sometimes called reparative therapy, seeks to change a non-heterosexual person's sexual orientation so they will no longer be homosexual or bisexual.
* Hypnosis – state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist.
* Psychoanalysis – body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and his followers, which is devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior. HELLO MBTI DEVOTEES
* Subliminal advertising, a visual or auditory information that is discerned below the threshold of conscious awareness and claims to have a powerful enduring effect on consuming habits.
* Neuro-linguistic programming – an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s. The title refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life.
* Colon cleansing (colonics, colon hydrotherapy) – encompasses a number of alternative medical therapies intended to remove fecal waste and unidentified toxins from the colon and intestinal tract.
* Faith healing – act of curing disease by such means as prayer and laying on of hands.
* Homeopathy – belief in giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely dilute remedies that are thought to produce those same symptoms in healthy people.
* Acupuncture – use of fine needles to stimulate acupuncture points and balance the flow of qi.
* Urine therapy – drinking either one's own undiluted urine or homeopathic potions of urine for treatment of a wide variety of diseases is based on pseudoscience.
* Biblical scientific foreknowledge (Judaism and Christianity) – asserts that the Bible makes accurate statements about the world that science verifies thousands of years later.
* Perpetual motion – class of proposed machines that violate one of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Perpetual motion has been recognized as extrascientific since the late 18th century, but proposals and patents for such devices continue to be made to the present day.
* Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races, or alternatively the claim of "classifying" individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races or ethnicities.

And my personal favorite:
* Psychiatry -
The anti-psychiatry movement says that the specific definitions of, or criteria for, hundreds of current psychiatric diagnoses or disorders are vague and arbitrary, leaving too much room for opinions and interpretations to meet basic scientific standards. They also say that prevailing psychiatric treatments are ultimately far more damaging than helpful to patients.
Some mental health professionals and academics profess anti-psychiatry views, as do a number of former and current users of psychiatric services. Some critics focus their attention on what is known as biological psychiatry.

The Scientific Method assumes the repeatability of experiments. In fact, repeating an experiment is the core of the last step of the Scientific Method: peer review. If the changeling's behavior cannot be repeated (and nobody knows that) then no amount of experimentation will ever yield conclusive results. However, if the changeling changes its behavior according to an underlying mechanism-- especially one whose steps are reversible by some means-- then we can ascertain the mechanism through experiment and thereby understand the changeling itself by either eliminating the cause of the changes or studying these alterations in behavior as phenomena in themselves.

Okay. But if conclusive results aren't reached, then does Person A know anything? And I agree that there's plenty of ways this person could re-approach studying the changeling in the hopes of getting something conclusive. But...okay imagine just for the moment that the changeling is a person; should Person A tell other people that they have learned something about people?

Yes, they know what happens to the changeling under given circumstances-- no more, and no less. However, Person A can model the interaction of the changeling with individual components of the environment, and, assuming that an underlying mechanism to the changeling's behavior exists, can ultimately understand how the changeling will behave with any given thing. Ultimately, you've conflated the idea of how the changeling interacts with specific things in nature and the nature of the changeling itself. Water flows in different ways over different things, but it's still just water.

Well, that's the catch though. As they add variables into the environment, they learn how the changeling went from one experiment to another. But if they then remove those added variables, the changeling does not go back to what it was before. It is something new now. So what Person A has is a linear understanding of changes, but nothing directly conclusive. If any deviation from that linear understanding is produced in a changeling, nothing can be predicted about what it will become.

Statistical knowledge is statistical, not absolute; however, statistical knowledge is still knowledge, albeit of a different kind. Also, the assumption that the nature of things will not change over time (e.g., electrons have a charge of -1 no matter where or when you are) belies all knowledge gathered by empirical trial; indeed, the epistemology of the Scientific method demands that all statements-- or systems of statements (Scientific Theories)-- be falsifiable by contrary data. In summary: As a wise man once said, "Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".

Okay, but I never said or meant that it wasn't knowledge. Just that its knowledge is both subjected and abstracted from objective reality (it doesn't deal with the direct impact or temporary nature of a thing).

Then allow me to reword my thesis. Science is the perfect way to gain knowledge about reality as the philosophy of Science assumes reality to be: monistic, physicalist, knowable, and stable.

-Duxwing

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Duxwing]

Any pseudoscience.

By definition, pseudoscience isn't science: it's quackery. I don't see how criticizing things that aren't science is germane to this discussion.

Okay. But if conclusive results aren't reached, then does Person A know anything? And I agree that there's plenty of ways this person could re-approach studying the changeling in the hopes of getting something conclusive. But...okay imagine just for the moment that the changeling is a person; should Person A tell other people that they have learned something about people?

If Person A can get no or has no conclusive results then they only know the data that they gathered. The philosophy of Science assumes that the universe proceeds like clockwork: according to static fundamental principles. Although this assumption grew from the idea of a rational God designing the cosmos, the universe has proved remarkably deterministic.

*brain circuits sizzle and pop* Why the new analogy? Is something hurting inside, dude(ette)? *concerned look*

Well, that's the catch though. As they add variables into the environment, they learn how the changeling went from one experiment to another. But if they then remove those added variables, the changeling does not go back to what it was before. It is something new now. So what Person A has is a linear understanding of changes, but nothing directly conclusive. If any deviation from that linear understanding is produced in a changeling, nothing can be predicted about what it will become.

Science is all about predictions, so if you can't make them, then you can't do science.

Okay, but I never said or meant that it wasn't knowledge. Just that its knowledge is both subjected and abstracted from objective reality (it doesn't deal with the direct impact or temporary nature of a thing).

Statistical knowledge is objective, not subjective. I conjecture that "subjective knowledge" is in fact merely the result of psychological forces interfering with the proper execution of logic.


Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Overall, I'm getting the impression that you just want me to acknowledge the limitations of the Scientific method, so I'll list them here:

Science...
-Doesn't work on anything supernatural or involving the supernatural in any way, shape, or form

It also...
-Assumes that the universe exists and has static fundamental principles

-Duxwing

 

[nexion]

it has no flaws because it was designed from the ground up with that purpose in mind.

-Duxwing

Define 'flaw'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Science is a system of thought derived from the Empiricist and Rationalist schools of thought that was designed to produce statements about reality. All other non-science methods inevitably contain problems (unfalsifiable hypotheses, for example) that science does not.

As great as science and scientific inquiry and empirical evidence is, they have severe limitations. They can answer all the 'How?' questions they want at any level but cannot answer one single 'Why?'.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

This is Marx stuff.

 

[Reluctantly]

By definition, pseudoscience isn't science: it's quackery. I don't see how criticizing things that aren't science is germane to this discussion.

It's germane because people want to understand other people; by understanding other people we can avoid conflict and become better fulfilled. The problem is people are like the changeling and it would be just as absurd to say that people can not be understood as it is to say they can be understood.

And I want you to answer my questions please. It's pathetic that no one has yet shown even the boldness of intellect to attempt to answer the questions.

If Person A can get no or has no conclusive results then they only know the data that they gathered. The philosophy of Science assumes that the universe proceeds like clockwork: according to static fundamental principles. Although this assumption grew from the idea of a rational God designing the cosmos, the universe has proved remarkably deterministic.

Some parts of it, yes. But psychology and quantum mechanics has not. You keep parroting the same broken and misleading representation of science.

*brain circuits sizzle and pop* Why the new analogy? Is something hurting inside, dude(ette)? *concerned look*

Because you fail to grasp the problem.

Science is all about predictions, so if you can't make them, then you can't do science.

Anyone can make a prediction. I don't even need to study anything to gamble on a predicted outcome. It doesn't make it science. You're starting to sound defensive and desperate.

Statistical knowledge is objective, not subjective. I conjecture that "subjective knowledge" is in fact merely the result of psychological forces interfering with the proper execution of logic.

No, it's not. Statistics doesn't deal with the temporary nature of a thing or situation. It relates past occurrences to estimate a probable next one; but there's no guarantee that the statistic will represent an accurate probably of what will happen in the future. People that use statistics to predict the stock market fail more often than not; statistics applied to sports fails more often than not; statistics can't predict how to keep an economy stabilized; etc. You're getting sillier and sillier with what you say as we continue.

Overall, I'm getting the impression that you just want me to acknowledge the limitations of the Scientific method, so I'll list them here:

I want you to be capable of understanding the epistemological problem of the OP and attempt to answer the daunting questions it invokes. There's nothing underhanded about what I want here. Just an honest discussion of a very real problem.

This is Marx stuff.

Maybe. But I've never read Marx. And I probably never will; because judging from the political discussions I have with most people and the way the government process seems to work (in the United States), government is more about selling ideologies than rationality.

 

[Duxwing]

It's germane because people want to understand other people; by understanding other people we can avoid conflict and become better fulfilled. The problem is people are like the changeling and it would be just as absurd to say that people can not be understood as it is to say they can be understood.

OK, then why did you pose the question as one regarding a particle? You’re not being forthright with your intentions: we’re either discussing particles, people, or an abstraction that can represent either. Although you’re likely frustrated with my not understanding your point, I can’t discuss the subject further until I know exactly what your point is.

And I want you to answer my questions please. It's pathetic that no one has yet shown even the boldness of intellect to attempt to answer the questions.

I did not reply to the questions because your reasoning in asking them was flawed.

Some parts of it, yes. But psychology and quantum mechanics has not. You keep parroting the same broken and misleading representation of science.

Please tell me how science works, then.

Because you fail to grasp the problem.

Most evidently, but you aren’t helping matters.

Anyone can make a prediction. I don't even need to study anything to gamble on a predicted outcome. It doesn't make it science. You're starting to sound defensive and desperate.

DEFENSIVE? DESPERATE HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU SAY THAT?

All kidding aside, science makes predictions based on past data under the assumption that the observed systems will remain the same in the future. Your changeling can’t be studied by experiment because its behavior does not remain fixed: trying to experiment on it is like trying to hit a moving bull’s-eye in the dark by listening to your bullet ping off the metal: even when you hit it dead on, the changeling changes its behavior and you’re back at square one.

No, it's not. Statistics doesn't deal with the temporary nature of a thing or situation. It relates past occurrences to estimate a probable next one; but there's no guarantee that the statistic will represent an accurate probably of what will happen in the future. People that use statistics to predict the stock market fail more often than not; statistics applied to sports fails more often than not; statistics can't predict how to keep an economy stabilized; etc. You're getting sillier and sillier with what you say as we continue.

You’ve intentionally designed your changeling to be impossible to predict. Science can’t help you understand it, I can’t help you understand it, and no rational being alive can understand your blasted changeling because you’ve so designed it that it can’t be understood! *sighs* Statistics assumes away the problem of induction. Yes, it uses an assumption—an axiom, something taken for granted, but that doesn’t mean that Boyle’s Law, for example, cannot be proven through experiment: ideal gases, for example, unlike the ludicrously complex systems used as evidence in your work (the stock market and sports matches) are simple enough to be modeled easily, and we can use repeated experiments to vastly decrease the chance that the correspondence of our predicted values to our recorded values is a mere coincidence. Of course, the knowledge gained by such experimentation is never absolute; indeed, there will forever be a tiny sliver of possibility that all of our scientific knowledge is one grand coincidence. But to argue such a point is to misunderstand science completely: it never looks to establish the knowledge that it produces as absolute, only as highly likely given the data at hand.

Indeed, you’ve essentially misunderstood your own argument. The ability of a changeling to slip through the ‘cracks’ inherent in statistical models does not imply that any other entity is a changeling, for the burden of proof rests on you to prove such a claim. Nevertheless, the “profound epistemological knowledge” (paraphrased) remains: All our theories, despite all the experiments done, could be just a enormous coincidence. But is that a criticism of the internal consistency of the scientific method? No, that’s a criticism of its assumptions, which I have freely admitted to you time and time again. I have recently received the last will of this dead horse, and it makes very clear that the body is not to be beaten.

I want you to be capable of understanding the epistemological problem of the OP and attempt to answer the daunting questions it invokes. There's nothing underhanded about what I want here. Just an honest discussion of a very real problem.

I have, to my knowledge (a term common in science—remember that no theory is absolute) been unable to properly answer those questions because they are, by your own admission, an allegory to other problems. Although such a problem could be purely personal, the entrance of extended metaphors, allusions, and other such artistic elements greatly impedes my ability to debate, and if you’d like to continue this discussion, I want you to pretend that I am as ignorant and dumb as a newborn babe: spell it out for me in every detail.

-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

OK, then why did you pose the question as one regarding a particle? You’re not being forthright with your intentions: we’re either discussing particles, people, or an abstraction that can represent either. Although you’re likely frustrated with my not understanding your point, I can’t discuss the subject further until I know exactly what your point is.

Because as long as we don't know what it is, it can potentially be any of them.

I did not reply to the questions because your reasoning in asking them was flawed.

And yet you haven't adequately explained why for me to correct them. One then begins to wonder if you're capable of grasping the problem.

Please tell me how science works, then.

Red herring. How I say science works doesn't change the problem.

Most evidently, but you aren’t helping matters.

I can't help if you continue to cling to ideas I've already explained are flawed. That has to do with your own intellectual honesty, as well as intellectual capability. That's all controlled by you.

DEFENSIVE? DESPERATE HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU SAY THAT?

Because you keep contending points I've refuted. You don't even provide a rebuttal, just the same assumption/argument as before.

All kidding aside, science makes predictions based on past data under the assumption that the observed systems will remain the same in the future. Your changeling can’t be studied by experiment because its behavior does not remain fixed: trying to experiment on it is like trying to hit a moving bull’s-eye in the dark by listening to your bullet ping off the metal: even when you hit it dead on, the changeling changes its behavior and you’re back at square one.

You say this now, but I predict one post from now you'll be explaining again how science is perfect.

You’ve intentionally designed your changeling to be impossible to predict. Science can’t help you understand it, I can’t help you understand it, and no rational being alive can understand your blasted changeling because you’ve so designed it that it can’t be understood! *sighs* Statistics assumes away the problem of induction. Yes, it uses an assumption—an axiom, something taken for granted, but that doesn’t mean that Boyle’s Law, for example, cannot be proven through experiment: ideal gases, for example, unlike the ludicrously complex systems used as evidence in your work (the stock market and sports matches) are simple enough to be modeled easily, and we can use repeated experiments to vastly decrease the chance that the correspondence of our predicted values to our recorded values is a mere coincidence. Of course, the knowledge gained by such experimentation is never absolute; indeed, there will forever be a tiny sliver of possibility that all of our scientific knowledge is one grand coincidence. But to argue such a point is to misunderstand science completely: it never looks to establish the knowledge that it produces as absolute, only as highly likely given the data at hand.

Not so. Now you're making claims for science. Newton's laws, for example, say nothing about probability. They assert fundamental laws behind the universe. Also, the statistical models you talk about take into account the nature of the situation; true, one could argue that by balancing knowledge about something with logic, one could create a statistic that will work most of the time, but it still says nothing about what's going on when it doesn't predict anything, which can create an affect that invalids the statistic as being further useful.

Indeed, you’ve essentially misunderstood your own argument. The ability of a changeling to slip through the ‘cracks’ inherent in statistical models does not imply that any other entity is a changeling, for the burden of proof rests on you to prove such a claim. Nevertheless, the “profound epistemological knowledge” (paraphrased) remains: All our theories, despite all the experiments done, could be just a enormous coincidence. But is that a criticism of the internal consistency of the scientific method? No, that’s a criticism of its assumptions, which I have freely admitted to you time and time again. I have recently received the last will of this dead horse, and it makes very clear that the body is not to be beaten.

I'm not saying any other entity then becomes a changeling. For example, I'm not saying there are biological aspects to say, a person, that couldn't be understood. I am saying that the way human beings relate meaning to the world through their existence represents that of the changeling. Any attempt to use science to understand the subjective world of each person parallels the nature of the changeling. Understanding, itself as it's own word, implies a subjective orientation (that of observation and interpretation) of the world. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't understand the objective world through our subjective limitations, as science can teach us a great deal; but it does mean the question of whether or not we can understand the subjective world through our subjective limitations carries no rules or certainties.

I have, to my knowledge (a term common in science—remember that no theory is absolute) been unable to properly answer those questions because they are, by your own admission, an allegory to other problems. Although such a problem could be purely personal, the entrance of extended metaphors, allusions, and other such artistic elements greatly impedes my ability to debate, and if you’d like to continue this discussion, I want you to pretend that I am as ignorant and dumb as a newborn babe: spell it out for me in every detail.

Who said this was a debate? All I wanted was a discussion of the problem - its characteristics, nature, and parallels with aspects of reality. The questions are just a gateway into this realm of thought.

 

[Reluctantly]

As great as science and scientific inquiry and empirical evidence is, they have severe limitations. They can answer all the 'How?' questions they want at any level but cannot answer one single 'Why?'.

This is actually a really good point. Why seeks out reasons for a cause, whereas how seeks to define causes. If the changeling is acting within its own reasons for change, attempts to define how it changes will be unpredictable. And we're back with the questions again.

 

[Duxwing]

Because as long as we don't know what it is, it can potentially be any of them.

OK, then, so stop using extended analogies to people.

And yet you haven't adequately explained why for me to correct them. One then begins to wonder if you're capable of grasping the problem.

I have already pointed out how they are flawed: your changeling is something that is expressly defined as something that cannot be predicted. Things that cannot be predicted by any means are, by definition, random. Random variables, like your changeling, don't fit into statistical models because their values, unlike those of statistical models, don't follow any rules. To analogize, you're essentially asking me how to predict the next in a random string of numbers; it cannot be done without relying on something unprovable, like the soul.

Also, ad hominem.

Red herring. How I say science works doesn't change the problem.

It most certainly changes the problem that you presented: you made clear your view that the study of "Psychology [and] quantum mechanics" does not involve predictive models, and I, knowing that it does, rebutted by saying that you should explain yourself: if I'm wrong, then I don't understand science.

I can't help if you continue to cling to ideas I've already explained are flawed. That has to do with your own intellectual honesty, as well as intellectual capability. That's all controlled by you.

I'm not clinging to them, actually. I've never even professed them to be true, in fact, I think that Science is a system of thought that relies on certain assumptions like monism, physicalism, etc. I keep saying that no rational being can use anything besides Science because arguing about a universe implies that a universe exists at all, and the Scientific universe is the simplest one short of absolute chaos; all other universes require additional assumptions and knowledge that cannot be gained through reason, like knowledge of supernatural realms and souls.

Also, ad hominem.

Because you keep contending points I've refuted. You don't even provide a rebuttal, just the same assumption/argument as before.

I'm providing the same assumptions because you're arguing about something that science-- or any form argument that doesn't rely on dualism, for that matter (you refer to the "subjective world" in your rebuttal)-- cannot be used to understand. To use a metaphor, you're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

You say this now, but I predict one post from now you'll be explaining again how science is perfect.

No rational being can understand the changeling because you've created it in a way that they cannot apply science-- the only valid form of empirical argument-- to its behavior. And before you call my statement one of hubris, do review the alternatives to science: the illogical interpretation of data and argument from private conviction. Science is not some method cooked up by a few eggheads in order to create new titles for themselves, it's the product of hundreds of years of philosophy regarding what kinds of claims are valid or invalid (read Popper on epistemology for more on that) how to interpret data, and the proper management of experiments.

Again, Science is the only way to rationally analyse the universe provided that the latter exists, can be known, and follows fundamental laws. The other methods don't work because they rely on private beliefs (e.g., God exists), incorrect experimentation (e.g., not isolating the dependent variable) and faulty claim evaluation (e.g., "You can't prove me wrong therefore I'm right"). That's what makes science such a good tool.

Not so. Now you're making claims for science. Newton's laws, for example, say nothing about probability. They assert fundamental laws behind the universe. Also, the statistical models you talk about take into account the nature of the situation; true, one could argue that by balancing knowledge about something with logic, one could create a statistic that will work most of the time, but it still says nothing about what's going on when it doesn't predict anything, which can create an affect that invalids the statistic as being further useful.

Non-sequitur: Where did you get the idea that Newton's laws, which only apply at large scales, are in any way representative of science as a whole?

Also, I agree that any given statistical model will not reflect the entirety of reality, but to say that a statistical model of leopard migrations is useless for understanding quantum physics is a truism.

I'm not saying any other entity then becomes a changeling. For example, I'm not saying there are biological aspects to say, a person, that couldn't be understood. I am saying that the way human beings relate meaning to the world through their existence represents that of the changeling. Any attempt to use science to understand the subjective world of each person parallels the nature of the changeling. Understanding, itself as it's own word, implies a subjective orientation (that of observation and interpretation) of the world. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't understand the objective world through our subjective limitations, as science can teach us a great deal; but it does mean the question of whether or not we can understand the subjective world through our subjective limitations carries no rules or certainties.

You're assuming that the mind is somehow inaccessible to science: understanding the brain will allow us to understand the mind provided a one-to-one correspondence exists between the two, and technology always marches on. Right now, scientists are creating a complete model of each neuron of the brain in order to better understand its workings.

Moreover, you've changed your tune. First, you referred to an abstract entity, now you're talking about the human experience.

Who said this was a debate? All I wanted was a discussion of the problem - its characteristics, nature, and parallels with aspects of reality. The questions are just a gateway into this realm of thought.

I won't quibble, this matter is beside the point.

-Duxwing

 

[Matt3737]

The scientific method is a refined method of approximating complex processes with limited or incomplete information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Ummmm, hmmm. I can't understand why the questions don't intrigue you. Maybe nobody really cares, but me.

You should succinctly put for a reason about why you think there is a problem with the scientific method. The hypothetical you put forward certainly does not highlight a problem with the method but with the actors. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. What I do find troubling is that people either misunderstand it and or what type of inquiry it is applicable to.

As great as science and scientific inquiry and empirical evidence is, they have severe limitations. They can answer all the 'How?' questions they want at any level but cannot answer one single 'Why?'.

It is a method about testing hypotheses. Questions of how and why depend on the hypothesis being tested.

 

[Etheri]

I'm sorry, last time i replied I only shortly skimmed through the thread. I've not read it entirely (sorry but it's long and I'm lazy, but i've found some interesting things and I'm more than willing to think about it.) I'll fully read it sometime... I think.

As for your "chances" argument, the behavior of large bodies is predictable: balls drop, bombs explode, and stars burn in the sky. The properties of the part do not necessarily conform to the properties of the whole.

This isn't true. Large bodies aren't 'exact' either, they're subject to statistics. However, since large bodies are made up of huge ammounts of small numbers (order 10^20 and more is typical), the variation is too small to measure. That doesn't mean deny the fact that it exists, it only makes it inpractical and, for any engineering purpose, irrelevant.

Statistical means doesn't actually provide knowing anything. In fact, it's subjective in that it assumes previous occurrences will say anything about the next one. Plus, say you have a 75% probability that an electron will end up within a certain range in an atom after a certain chemical reaction; well that 25% probability, if it occurs, doesn't predict where the electron will end up, except to say that it won't end up within that range. In that sense, this statistic doesn't say anything about the nature of the electron because if it knew about the electron it wouldn't require a statistic. What it knows is somewhat abstract and subjective.

Statistical means don't provide you with a tools to predict the case to case outcome. This is true! The knowledge isn't exact and absolute, I agree.

However, it is most certainly still knowledge. For example, you know the possible outcomes, and the frequency with which they happen. While this isn't always the most helpful approach (low number of events you want to predict, high spread on the possible outcomes, ...), you cannot deny it is knowledge.
While every electron in a tennisball has a pretty wide range of possible states and places it could be in, the tennisball will still drop as very accurately described by physics developped hundreds of years ago, as Dux mentioned. Not because we know the exact outcome of what every electron does, but because there's so many electrons that the individual electron doesn't really matter.

Please reread my OP, carefully, and answer the questions I provided. I illustrated a problem that makes science questionable in certain applications. You saying science is a perfect way to glean knowledge about reality suggests this.

So as to your OP, what we know about the changeling is that, in experiment A, both A and C are possibilities. In experiment B, both B and D are possibilities. This is knowledge. At this point, science constantly repeats the experiment, while keeping track of the frequency they get A, B and possibly any other outcome. Do we know absolutes? Can we predict the next outcome? No, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. As with a dice, I have no idea which number I'll roll, but I know that if I roll a couple thousand times, i'll probably have aproximately an equal amount of 1, 4 and 6 .

 

[Duxwing]

I'm sorry, last time i replied I only shortly skimmed through the thread. I've not read it entirely (sorry but it's long and I'm lazy, but i've found some interesting things and I'm more than willing to think about it.) I'll fully read it sometime... I think.

We can always use fresh meat for the grinder. *slaps on the back*

This isn't true. Large bodies aren't 'exact' either, they're subject to statistics. However, since large bodies are made up of huge ammounts of small numbers (order 10^20 and more is typical), the variation is too small to measure. That doesn't mean deny the fact that it exists, it only makes it inpractical and, for any engineering purpose, irrelevant.

Indeed, I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, I was talking about "large bodies" as Newton described them.

Statistical means don't provide you with a tools to predict the case to case outcome. This is true! The knowledge isn't exact and absolute, I agree.

However, it is most certainly still knowledge. For example, you know the possible outcomes, and the frequency with which they happen. While this isn't always the most helpful approach (low number of events you want to predict, high spread on the possible outcomes, ...), you cannot deny it is knowledge.
While every electron in a tennisball has a pretty wide range of possible states and places it could be in, the tennisball will still drop as very accurately described by physics developped hundreds of years ago, as Dux mentioned. Not because we know the exact outcome of what every electron does, but because there's so many electrons that the individual electron doesn't really matter.

His point is about that tiny variation, though.

So as to your OP, what we know about the changeling is that, in experiment A, both A and C are possibilities. In experiment B, both B and D are possibilities. This is knowledge. At this point, science constantly repeats the experiment, while keeping track of the frequency they get A, B and possibly any other outcome. Do we know absolutes? Can we predict the next outcome? No, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. As with a dice, I have no idea which number I'll roll, but I know that if I roll a couple thousand times, i'll probably have aproximately an equal amount of 1, 4 and 6 .

You've hit the nail on the head regarding probability.

-Duxwing