the explanatory scientific method

NOTES:

feel free to join the facebook group "rational science" if you are interested.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/149993398400709/

-the ideas presented here are somewhat tentative, i certainly don't have this all down pat, so feel free to comment, criticize, critique, etc.

-as far as the definitions of "a priori" and "a posteriori" go, there are generally three uses of the term "truth." the first is "truth" as in the degree to which a model corresponds to the actuality of the world. the second is "truth" as in logical validity. the third is capital T "Truth" as in the ultimate nature of reality or existence. the first notion of the truth is the one i am using in the definition. logical validity would be "a priori" because one can make such an assessment without ever assessing whether or not the definitions apply to the actuality of the world. the capital T notion of "Truth" is the focus of metaphysics.

-there is also a huge focus on the importance of prediction in the common scientific method, which is something i didn't have time to really talk about. knowing certain theories may be able to allow one to make more accurate predictions, but predictions cannot confirm or disconfirm an explanation. predictions also cannot prove or disprove the existence of causal agents, they must always be hypothesized. predictive approaches, like the use of equations, can be very useful, but when confused with explanation it can lead to circular reasoning and other problems.

- as far as i know, the explanatory scientific method should work for any field of science

much credit goes to:

http://www.youtube.com/bgaede
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

This individual does not necessarily endorse anything I say, nor do I represent the views of this individual.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• the
• explanatory
• scientific
• method
• explanation
• science
• physics
• economics
• austrian
• school
• of
• paul
• krugman
• theory
• hypothesis
• cause
• effect
• causation
• deductive
• rational
• conceivable
• knowledge
• truth
• priori
• posteriori

[podrag]

Fucken awesomely interesting video.

[EpicYarnEM]

Science: "Hey did you see [movie of observed phenomenon]? Well, consider [other movie, ending with the first movie]. Plausible?"

[ThePallidor]

"Isomorphic" is becoming a great weasel word these days, because it's very easy to equivocate on. It originally means there is *some* kind of pattern relationship between two structures. It conveniently doesn't specify what that relationship is.

Either way, there is absolutely no way that a round dot on your visual field is isomorphic to pair of coordinates, even if the pair of coordinates tells you how to get to the dot. It's simply handwaving and hoping the audience will go along with it.

[EpicYarnEM]

Hence we never need to bother with "in here" vs. "out there."

[junior00bacon00chee]

@Xero555000

lol, are you going to make relevant arguments or what? all you do is go on and on about bill gaede, why don't you go talk to him if you are so obsessed with him?

if "school of thought" means every last nuance of one's world view then i wouldn't be in the same school of thought as Gaede, would I? God you're retarded, say something interesting or stop wasting my time.

[Xero555000]

@junior00bacon00chee That would put you in a different school of thought if you were of a different school of thought.

That's a proof by contradiction. I showed a contradiction in your statement and therefore proved you to be as idiotic as Bill Gayde. And come on... where else could you have picked up all this bullshit? None other than Bill Gayde.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@Xero555000

In order to even contemplate whether or not "energy" exists I would have to give it a physical interpretation. It's kind of hard to say "X exists" when you haven't decided what "X" means. So until someone does that "energy" exists about as much as God exists.

And I don't have to defend a damn thing Gaede says you dipshit. I am only obligated to defend what I say. Believe it or not there can be disagreements within the same school of thought fucktard!

[Xero555000]

@junior00bacon00chee You do because you're both of the same school of thought. And if you can't it sorta undermines your entire argument against the scientific establishment. You say "inconsistent" scientists say "isomorphic" ... scientists and mathematicians have spent a great deal of time proving these isomorphisms, just look at Joule and his work with energy. Does energy not exist?

[junior00bacon00chee]

@Xero555000

I've never made any arguments with respect to points, that is Bill's deal. Don't put me in the same boat as Bill just because we share similar views on some things. Am I required to defend everything Bill Gaede says? I hope not!

[Xero555000]

@junior00bacon00chee i dont mean "simple logic" i mean the theory of logic. Like when you do a mathematical proof

[Xero555000]

@junior00bacon00chee Watch Gaede's video on what is a point. Every definition he comes up with to define a point is isomorphic to the others. Gaede then waves his magic wand and says they are contradictory and that scientists are being inconsistent, when in reality the definitions are isomorphic and can freely be used interchangeably without any loss of truth. And you probably dont understand the definition because you don't understand logic