Originally posted by One Free Man
Sure we have credibility and probability, but the scientists see something, and they attribute it to some theory about something. "oop the planets are getting farther apart. Let's give that to the big bang." what? You say you can't make another element out of a noble gas? Uhhhhhh welll, we could imperically test that little fact and find out, but uhhhh it'd destroy the universe.
are you familiar with the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos?
long story short, your criticism has been built into the scientific theory
Originally posted by Mindship
In astronomy, one predicts observations. In biology, eg, one predicts results from manipulation of variables. Since either could occur with equal regularity, what are the philosophical reasons for seeing the latter as "harder" evidence than the former?
the ability to control confounds.
if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty
Originally posted by inimalist
are you familiar with the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos?long story short, your criticism has been built into the scientific theory
the ability to control confounds.
if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.
Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.
But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.
Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."
If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."
Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.
But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.
Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."
If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."
Yes, you can keep going on with that way of thinking, but you will never get funding, and on one will listen to you any more.
Originally posted by Wild ShadowHence, "Perhaps."
not very scientific
Originally posted by inimalistThat's what I thought. Understandably, scientists (being human) like more "hands on." But, yeah, if done properly, it should be just as valid.
the ability to control confounds.if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty
Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.
But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.
Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."
If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."
First of all claims like that usually don't make it past peer review. Secondly a claim based on "there's no evidence that this isn't true" won't get very far in the sciences.
Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.
But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.
Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."
If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."
Blah, I'll try to give a real answer to this, as I can totally see where you are coming from
All science, please remember, is a human endeavor, and will therefore be as flawed and subject to personal biases as anything else. Most scientists who produce amazing results early in their career later end up fighting against new ideas that displace theirs, regardless of the data. People form into theoretical "camps" and it is hard to publish data that doesn't fit neatly into those theories.
However, the specific issue you are talking about is Occam's Razor. The hologram offers more variables than an alternative hypothesis, so unless there is a reason to dismiss the alternatives, the hologram hypothesis is too cumbersome