Science and its Hypotheses (Philosophy of Science)

[TheTruthgeneral]

It is not very wise to spend timsaying things like oh the scientific method is the best tool ever devised for inquiry.First and foremost science can be properly reduced and defined merely as any type of empirical study/measurement.Which means any deliberate process of question and answer about anything accessible by the senses done by any individual whether at a university or not, written down in " scientific journals" or not is science.So science is just the mind in action

[crazypills2]

@TheTruthgeneral "So science is just the mind in action"

I would disagree. The human mind has been in action for thousands of years and yielded very poor, inaccurate conclusions. The scientific method adds structure to ensure our conclusions are justified (criteria of adequacy) before taking them seriously.

[Kulgera4]

I love how these science narrations sound like they're really stoned.

[deductivist]

The Quine-Duhem thesis only says that you cannot decide *which* 'scientific premise' is false....but you can decide that all of them, taken in conjunction, are false - logic permits that. It's like knowing that there is a paradox present without knowing which premise is to blame (or if all of them are). Now, the aim of science is to explain. So, all we have to do is selectively eliminate premises until the paradox goes away, and keep the one that furnishes the most good explanations.

[dreamy2]

Does that mean we don't have a test to distinguish science from non-science?

[crazypills2]

Good question dreamy2.



In order to be scientific, a hypothesis must be testable. And, to be considered testable, it must predict something other than what it was introduced to explain. I will be discussing this more in my next video that evaluates creationism, intelligent design, and parapsychology using the criteria of adequacy.

[dreamy2]

@crazypills2 : thanks look forward

[MJRockX]

Doing a little critical thinking here:

I would hardly say that Copernicans explanations for the motions of the planets fit well with the established beliefs at the time. Galileo was nearly put to death over it. Moreover taking into account the mathematics of the orbits of the planets as well as the moons of Jupiter seems much more complicated than a simple layering of clear bowls over the earth.

[crazypills2]

MJRockX,

Copernicus' theory definitively went against established beliefs of the time; however, were these beliefs well-established? In other words, were they justified? And, even when our beliefs are justified, new evidence can provide reason to abandon them.

Copernicus theory was much simpler, as many of the epicycles needed to explain Ptolemys theory were unnecessary with Copernicus

[MJRockX]

Then you would agree that a radical departure from commonly justified beleifs does not necessairly indicate a false proposition.

[Arcaani]

crazypills2:

I enjoy listening to your voice. It is calming like morphine. In a good way.

Additionally, you make good points. I also enjoyed your summary of the scientific method.

[crazypills2]

Thanks Arcaani. I appreciate your support.

[gustjorodedheo]

Once again, a very insightful video. I was taught that along with conservatism, and simplicity, the hypothesis with the fewest amount of new beliefs was more likely to be true. Does this still apply?

[crazypills2]

gustjorodedheo,

I haven't heard it phrased quite that way, but a good hypothesis is one which unifies knowledge. In other words, unites well-established beliefs. For instance, string theory unites general relativity with quantum mechanics

[dannukesem]

Interesting video.

[crazypills2]

Thanks dannukesem

[twothlesswonder]

How have I missed these videos for this long?

Good stuff man! You make some very important distinctions. I'm going to check out the others right now...

[crazypills2]

twothlesswonder,

Thanks for stopping by.

[SuperFinGuy]

This video pretty much leaves the big bang and neo-Darwinism out of science then.

The only thing I don't agree with this video is the claim that you can't be 100% sure of something. I'll give you an example, we know for sure that the sun exists.

And a hypothesis doesn't have 'auxiliary hypothesis' if it is integrated with previous proven facts. You can't build on unproven assumptions, that would be an ad-hoc fallacy.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

"We know for sure that the sun exists"

No we don't. Your senses could be wrong, and the world around you an illusion. Don't you know Descartes: "I think, therfore I am".

But even he hadn't reduced it enough.

What we can claim is this: "There are thoughts".

[SuperFinGuy]

Yes we do, it is beyond a reasonable doubt. It couldn't be an illusion because of many different factors and feedbacks that we perceive around us, which gives us an 100% certainty and are independent of our thoughts.

On the other hand there is no reason or evidence that I am making you or the world up.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

Have you seen the Matrix? You wouldn't have any idea that you weren't just living an illusion. You would have no evidence.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not "absolute certainty/100%".

Perception being indenpendant from thoughts is irrelevant, because how do you know that your senses are giving you a correct image of the world around you.

So no, we can't be 100% sure about anything beyond our thoughts.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[SuperFinGuy]

@Aaberg123 The thing is that the Matrix is fiction. If you know a bit of psychology and how our bodies/minds work you know that it doesn't make any sense, and since there is no evidence or reason, such idea is meaningless and dangerous actually.

Yeah it is beyond a reasonable doubt and more than that, it is 100% certain.

I know that my senses are accurate because of how things work and the feed back I get from things I observe, and that couldn't possibly come from my imagination.

[SuperFinGuy]

Because my thoughts exist it has to be the outcome of something, it cannot exist without external factors or causes.

I am just saying there is no reason to think I live in "the matrix". The probability of that is nil.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

I'm sorry, but you are simply hopelessly wrong and ill-informed.

Funny you should ask if I knew a bit of psychology and physiology, when it's clear that you don't.

And a person hallucinating a snakes and voices are accurate representations of the world? You know absolutely nothing, yet continues to spew bullshit. What a fucking joke.

Read your way through some books about epistemology, because right now, you're just wasting my time.

[Aaberg123]

Disregard the grammatical errors. They are irrelevant to my argument.

[SuperFinGuy]

@Aaberg123 Hallucinations are different from actual conscious perceptions, they originate from the lack of introspective thought actually, look up schizophrenia.

Ok you can't handle a discussion and now you're running away with name calling. Typical of an intellectual coward.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

Ok. Prove me this: You are not just a brain in a jar, hooked up to a system that feeds you impulses of a world that doesn't exist.

Since you proclaim absolute certainty of the factual existence of the sun, disproving my hypothesis should be of no matter of an intellect of your magnitude.

As I said: study some fucking basic epistemology!

[SuperFinGuy]

@Aaberg123 Do you realize that you're asking me to prove which doesn't exist or to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you, show me evidence and reason to consider I am just a brain in a jar, because otherwise your idea is meaningless. Actually evidence not only shows it's meaningless but it is flat out wrong as well.

I have a question for you too. Prove me there is a box of noodles orbiting the planet Neptune. Come on prove me wrong! lol

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

Great, you took the bait, but yet still failed to get the fucking point.

Since you cannot disprove that the world you're living in isn't an illusion, you are therefore unable to have absolute knowledge about the factual existence of the sun!

Do you get it now, or do I need to educate you further about epistemology?!

[SuperFinGuy]

Man there is nothing to prove, your idea is null. I am 100% sure it isn't real.

On the contrary, we can see, feel, send probes and experience the sun and its results. The probability for it's non existence is zero.

[Aaberg123]

..........

Let's starts with the basics: How do you know your senses gives you an accurate representation of the world around you?

[SuperFinGuy]

Ok I'll play, based on previous knowledge, how things work, what I see and the feedback I get.

It all shows that I am not plugged in to "the matrix" and that such thing is not real. Why you ask...

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

How do you know that those previous experiences, and hence knowledge, are not based on equally faulty sensory perception?

This, of course, also applies to your "How things work", "What I see" and "The feedback I get"

How do you know?

[SuperFinGuy]

I think it is pretty obvious. Because they work and do what they are suppose to. That's why they are accurate. They are based on reality, while "the matrix" is just imagination.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

"Because they work etc."

This could equally be said about a well-working Matrix-like system.

"They are based on reality etc.."

That's the point. You could live in a Matrix right now, and watch the film about the thought up world in the Matrix.

The question is yet again, how do you know?

All the reasons for why you're not in a matrix works equally well within a matrix as it does outside one, presuming [remember that word] that the matrix resembles the real world.

[SuperFinGuy]

@Aaberg123 Again you are forgetting that a matrix-like system doesn't exist and there is no reason and evidence that one is existent. That is how I know. Read my comments again.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

I did read you comments, but you didn't read mine it seems.

The problem of disproving a matrix-system is that you could be living in it right now, and have absolutely no idea...whatsoever.

So you CAN'T know.

For evidence of a matrix I could just as well claim all evidence we see in the world around us, because the matrix could be perfectly indistinguishable from the world we're living in.

Understand?

[SuperFinGuy]

@Aaberg123

So what evidence you have for such theory to have any validity?! There is none, it is just your imagination. By definition something that cannot be observed or have no consequence doesn't exist.

Your matrix theory is the definition of non existence. I know it doesn't exist because it cannot be seen or known to exist. You cannot know a thing that doesn't exist, just know it doesn't exist.

Even worse than my theory of a box of noodles orbiting the sun.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

So if you were potentially inside this matrix, and you had no knowledge of it and you couldn't prove or disprove it, it doesn't exists?! Really?

It's not that you can't understand this, it's because you simply won't.

Russell's teapot (which you copied) just might exist, but we would have no reason to believe so. But that doesn't mean that we can categorically rule, with absolute certainty, that it doesn't exists.

Epistemology - theory of knowledge. Educate yourself!

[SuperFinGuy]

Dude there is all the evidence/reason in the world that reality is not generated by "the matrix" and that it doesn't exist.

So I epistemologically KNOW it doesn't exist.

[Aaberg123]

@SuperFinGuy

You're either a troll or a lazy, dumb, moron.

I've stopped caring about your retardation.

[SuperFinGuy]

LOL and you cowardly end up again running away with name calling.

You theory has absolutely nothing to be worth of consideration, much for contrary. I have a new one for you to ponder on - Our whole reality is made up by an all powerful being named Bob

[LeksServices]

Ever notice that in all our simulations, everything behaves in consistent ways? I think that is a point worth making.

[Steve2323ZX]

@Aaberg123 so you cared about his retardation before?

[Aaberg123]

@Steve2323ZX

Evidentially, since I was apparently willing to try and educate his stupid little mind. Did you read our entire conversation? If his inability to fathom the simple concept of solipsism is not a show of some form of mental retardation, then I don't know what is. Or what do you think, Steve?

[Steve2323ZX]

@Aaberg123  the idea a person can never be 100 percent certain other minds exist or what our brains perceive has anything to do with reality is not something most people want to entertain regardless of their IQ.

[Aaberg123]

@Steve2323ZX

It's not a question of the actuality of the world being an illusion or not, but the mere understanding of the principle of solipsism. He clearly did not understand what constitutes knowledge and the implications of claiming to have 100% certainty of something external.

It's not really a matter of debate, it's a simple acceptance of the fact that we can only know that thoughts exists, and everything beyond that may be an illusion.

What people "want" is irrelevant here.

[Steve2323ZX]

@Aaberg123 what people want is always relevant. if someone wants to be intellectually honest with themselves then they may entertain an opposing idea but if they want to win an argument by any means and defend their world view, then they will resort to any rationalization they want to convince themselves they are in the right.

[Aaberg123]

@Steve2323ZX

Obfuscationism has always bored me. Did you have a point with all this?

[Steve2323ZX]

@Aaberg123 what bores or excites you is of absolutely no consequence to me but if you insist, I suggest you go play on a busy street at night wearing only dark clothing. Hopefully this will rid you of your boredom once and for all.

[Aaberg123]

@Steve2323ZX

A pitiful troll after all. I had expected more.

[Steve2323ZX]

@Aaberg123 sorry I didn't meet your expectations. I am so racked with guilt I will lose sleep over it tonight

[Blogrich55]

@ SuperFinGuy what evidence do you have to disprove the matrix theory?

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 Whether it is an illusion or not is irrelevant.

My senses tell me that I see the sun and I feel it's heat. Also, those around me tell me they see and feel it too.

Whether all of that is real or a product f my imagination does not matter. I know I exist and that my senses are real, therefore I *have* to assume that my senses are telling me the truth.

If you don't believe that leave your house by the second floor window next time you go out.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Of course you'll have to assume that what your perceive as sensory input is real, because you have no other choice; but that doesn't take away from my argument that the external world is ultimately unknowable.

It not a matter of practicality, but of concept; which SuperFinGuy (and you?) simply didn't fathom.

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 I understand your concept just fine thanks. You can believe, if you want, that the only real thing is your thoughts. It may even be true that these words are a product of your imagination. As a concept, I get it. But my answer is basically so what? even if it is true, it is utterly irrelevant even as a concept.

All your actions have the same consequences. If you jump from a plane at 35,000 feet, the reality you experience will end, whether the outside world is real or not.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Which is a debate that is irrelevant. I wasn't arguing about the practicality, but of the concept. That's it. I even explicitly made a point of it in my last post. How hard is it to understand that I wasn't arguing about practicality, but of the concept. There is no more to this, even though you seem to insist upon making it so.

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 So why were you even bothering to discuss the concept of an impractical and irrelevant idea in the first place? Talk about wasting people's time.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Well, if you were a little less lazy, you would've checked the context of my comments and understood that the concept of solipsism was quintessential to the argument I had with FinGuy. But alas, you were simply too damn lazy, and thus it was you, not I, who wasted your own time.

Get over yourself.

[drukenhard]

We could assume the sun existed at the time the rays we are seeing were discharged from it.

It's night time here now so I couldn't tell you if the sun blew up since this afternoon.

Beyond reasonable doubt is not 100% certain....it is just the closest thing to it.

[crazypills2]

SuperFinGuy,

I have a two questions for you: 1) how does this video imply that the big bang and "neo-Darwinism" are not science? and 2) What constitutes 100% certainty?

[ContinuumXT]

I measured the speed of light myself. No pun intented, seriously. It was really cool. First 'large' experiment I did in my first year of physics.

Good video. as there is also a important philosophical basis to science.

[crazypills2]

Thanks ContinuumXT. Once I complete my critical thinking series, I'm planning to do a series on the philosophy of science.

[Boepyne]

Crazypills, This is an excellent series and well produced.

[crazypills2]

Thanks Boepyne. I appreciate your support.

[daleshankins]

"It is not possible to falsify a hypothesis" due to its reliance on auxiliary hypothesis. But isn't it possible to falsify the auxiliary hypothesis? In your example, isn't the hypothesis that light travels in curved versus curved lines is a testable/falsifiable hypothesis? If so, aren't we in effect testing/falsifying the orginal hypothesis?

[crazypills2]

daleshankins,

You ask a good question. How would we go about falsifying that light travels in curved lines? Would we rely on the theory of the eye or the theories of other instruments? Remember, these are also auxiliary hypotheses or theories?

Ad hoc hypotheses can continue to be added to defend against recalcitrant data. Therefore, we must look at the performance of the hypothesis and the behavior of its defenders over time (e.g. is there a critical attitude and honesty or ad hoc maneuvers?).

[bloody545]

This is a great video.

I'm learning things.

[crazypills2]

Thanks for stopping by bloody545.