What do you believe but can't prove?

[janis]

In science, "theory" and "a theory" are different things. When people say "gravity is only a theory," they're getting confused with a hypothesis. "Theory" is a set of interconnected postulates that have not been proven false. So we could talk about "gravity theory," "evolutionary theory," or even "footbag theory" but all of those things actually exist.

Have a look at the history of science, theories are regularly falsified but kept by the scientific community. For example Newtons theory of gravity has been shown to be false but is still widely used. There is nothing to definitively say that non-observable entities exist, though scientific realists would believe that they do exist. But do theories actually postulate about entities that exist? Nobody has found any entity that can be shown to be responsible for gravity, does such an entity even exist?
But the real question in my mind is why do we feel like such entities need to exist?

The statement; "nothing can be proven," is only true if you apply the mathematical definition of proof to science, however it is a fallacy to do so. If we remove ourselves from philosophical debate, which has no evidence to support it (and is therefore meaningless), we can see that in science things can be proven all the time.

without any philosophical backing for science why should we believe that science is any more worthy than other pursuits that claim to have the knowledge about the world. Sure science can frequently be shown to be useful, but this is not the same as it being "true".

When we have one hypothesis that fits a range of different evidence, and all our attempts at falsification prove to be incorrect, we can, and should, assume that theory is proven correct (at least in part).

Why do you have such faith in a philosophy of science that is clearly shown to be inaccurate. But then again a naive Popperian philosophy of science is the among the most simple and emotionally comforting so I can see why it has its appeal.

[sniikeri]

Gravity is a theory, but it's also a fact, and it will remain a fact no matter how much you believe that it might not be.

Facts are always only the "most likely theory" - it's a fact until something disproves it.

I believe, but can't prove, that human has a freedom of choice at least to some extent and that everything we do isn't just determinism. Although, if someone proves this to be wrong, I won't feel devastated, as in most cases the mechanisms of determinism are too complex for the human mind to understand anyway.
I believe there are feelings.
I believe human has a soul, although I haven't thought about it enough; first I should clarify to myself what I actually understand with the term "soul".

[Asmus]

I believe Vasek is the best freestyle footbagger in the world.
But I can't prove it.
But I have some pretty good indicators that he is..

[Jeremy]

In science, "theory" and "a theory" are different things. When people say "gravity is only a theory," they're getting confused with a hypothesis. "Theory" is a set of interconnected postulates that have not been proven false. So we could talk about "gravity theory," "evolutionary theory," or even "footbag theory" but all of those things actually exist.

Have a look at the history of science, theories are regularly falsified but kept by the scientific community. For example Newtons theory of gravity has been shown to be false but is still widely used. There is nothing to definitively say that non-observable entities exist, though scientific realists would believe that they do exist. But do theories actually postulate about entities that exist? Nobody has found any entity that can be shown to be responsible for gravity, does such an entity even exist?
But the real question in my mind is why do we feel like such entities need to exist?

I'm not sure what your point is? My point was that the word "theory" has different meanings, and when people say something like "evolution is just a theory" they're getting confused about which theory people are talking about.

I also find your claim that "Newton's theory of gravity... is still widely used" interesting. As far as I'm aware, it's only used by either people who are ignorant of our advances in knowledge, or by people as a teaching tool. Like most things, scientific knowledge is based on what came before, so it's much easier to understand the new things if you understand the old stuff first. You could equally say that "astrology theory" or "Greek mythology theory" are still used by people, but I'm not sure how that relates to my point. Do you believe that scientists use Newton's gravitational theory to make predictions or explain observations? Also when you talk about "Newton's gravitational theory" are you talking about the collection of postulates Newton made about gravity, or are you specifically talking about his idea that gravity is a force of attraction between matter? Which definition of theory are you using?

The statement; "nothing can be proven," is only true if you apply the mathematical definition of proof to science, however it is a fallacy to do so. If we remove ourselves from philosophical debate, which has no evidence to support it (and is therefore meaningless), we can see that in science things can be proven all the time.

without any philosophical backing for science why should we believe that science is any more worthy than other pursuits that claim to have the knowledge about the world. Sure science can frequently be shown to be useful, but this is not the same as it being "true".

I think you're rather confusing what I was saying. Perhaps it would be good to go back and read the entire conversation, rather than a single post. I'm not going to play word games about what philosophy is. The reason we should believe that science is more worthy than other pursuits of knowledge is because science in simple terms is based around putting forward arguments that are convincing. If something is accepted in science, it is because the evidence convinces people, and if it's not accepted it's because the evidence doesn't convince people. The reason science has evolved into being so technical is a reflection of how sceptical people are and the variance of the world, such that you need a great deal of knowledge to understand the explanations.

When we have one hypothesis that fits a range of different evidence, and all our attempts at falsification prove to be incorrect, we can, and should, assume that theory is proven correct (at least in part).

Why do you have such faith in a philosophy of science that is clearly shown to be inaccurate. But then again a naive Popperian philosophy of science is the among the most simple and emotionally comforting so I can see why it has its appeal.[/quote]

Science has proven to be far more accurate than anything else. If you're going to make veiled insults in your posts, why don't you explain yourself in more details. If you go back and read this topic, it has nothing to do with the philosophy of science, but simply a misunderstanding of scientific terms. PegLegHolly claimed that "gravity is a theory... because no one can prove it," and I explained why that was wrong.

We don't know exactly what causes gravity but we have many reasons to believe that it exists and no reasons to believe that it doesn't. Now you can say that I have an "emotionally comforting" "Naive Popperian philosophy of science" in accepting that gravity exists, but it seems very rational to accept your own observations and not to disbelief in things if you have good reasons for that belief and no reasons for scepticism.

[Jeremy]

In science, "theory" and "a theory" are different things. When people say "gravity is only a theory," they're getting confused with a hypothesis. "Theory" is a set of interconnected postulates that have not been proven false. So we could talk about "gravity theory," "evolutionary theory," or even "footbag theory" but all of those things actually exist.

Have a look at the history of science, theories are regularly falsified but kept by the scientific community. For example Newtons theory of gravity has been shown to be false but is still widely used. There is nothing to definitively say that non-observable entities exist, though scientific realists would believe that they do exist. But do theories actually postulate about entities that exist? Nobody has found any entity that can be shown to be responsible for gravity, does such an entity even exist?
But the real question in my mind is why do we feel like such entities need to exist?

I'm not sure what your point is? My point was that the word "theory" has different meanings, and when people say something like "evolution is just a theory" they're getting confused about which theory people are talking about.

I also find your claim that "Newton's theory of gravity... is still widely used" interesting. As far as I'm aware, it's only used by either people who are ignorant of our advances in knowledge, or by people as a teaching tool. Like most things, scientific knowledge is based on what came before, so it's much easier to understand the new things if you understand the old stuff first. You could equally say that "astrology theory" or "Greek mythology theory" are still used by people, but I'm not sure how that relates to my point. Do you believe that scientists use Newton's gravitational theory to make predictions or explain observations? Also when you talk about "Newton's gravitational theory" are you talking about the collection of postulates Newton made about gravity, or are you specifically talking about his idea that gravity is a force of attraction between matter? Which definition of theory are you using?

The statement; "nothing can be proven," is only true if you apply the mathematical definition of proof to science, however it is a fallacy to do so. If we remove ourselves from philosophical debate, which has no evidence to support it (and is therefore meaningless), we can see that in science things can be proven all the time.

without any philosophical backing for science why should we believe that science is any more worthy than other pursuits that claim to have the knowledge about the world. Sure science can frequently be shown to be useful, but this is not the same as it being "true".

I think you're rather confusing what I was saying. Perhaps it would be good to go back and read the entire conversation, rather than a single post. I'm not going to play word games about what philosophy is. The reason we should believe that science is more worthy than other pursuits of knowledge is because science in simple terms is based around putting forward arguments that are convincing. If something is accepted in science, it is because the evidence convinces people, and if it's not accepted it's because the evidence doesn't convince people. The reason science has evolved into being so technical is a reflection of how sceptical people are and the variance of the world, such that you need a great deal of knowledge to understand the explanations.

When we have one hypothesis that fits a range of different evidence, and all our attempts at falsification prove to be incorrect, we can, and should, assume that theory is proven correct (at least in part).

Why do you have such faith in a philosophy of science that is clearly shown to be inaccurate. But then again a naive Popperian philosophy of science is the among the most simple and emotionally comforting so I can see why it has its appeal.

Science has proven to be far more accurate than anything else. If you're going to make veiled insults in your posts, why don't you explain yourself in more details. If you go back and read this topic, it has nothing to do with the philosophy of science, but simply a misunderstanding of scientific terms. PegLegHolly claimed that "gravity is a theory... because no one can prove it," and I explained why that was wrong.

We don't know exactly what causes gravity but we have many reasons to believe that it exists and no reasons to believe that it doesn't. Now you can say that I have an "emotionally comforting" "Naive Popperian philosophy of science" in accepting that gravity exists, but it seems very rational to accept your own observations and not to disbelief in things if you have good reasons for that belief and no reasons for scepticism.

[ObArA'BaRs]

What is gravity?

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure what you're point is.

gravity is a theory... because no one can prove it.

We don't know exactly what causes gravity but we have many reasons to believe that it exists.

"Gravity" refers to the easily observable FACT that different objects of matter appear to be attracted to each other. While we now know that they're not actually attracted (in the same way that magnets attract), I fail to see how we can have any doubt that we observe matter appearing to be attracted to other matter. Even if you perform the experiement of dropping something, and on one particular occasion it doesn't fall to the ground, we know that at least in every instance we know of, that's exactly what happens, unless there is a greater force pushing it elsewhere.


Gravity is a fact, explanations for the cause of gravity are not (yet). I'm not sure if I can express that any clearer.

If you actually read either of my posts, and posted that link to confirm that what I wrote was true (that we know gravity exists, but not why), rather than to contradict me, I apologise for the misinterpretation.

Incidentally the website you linked is wrong. Gravity is not an attraction between matter, in that sense it is a fictitious force. It is essentially the bending of space-time, caused by matter (like how if you drop a bowling bowl and a pea on a mattress it appears as if they are attracted to each other, but the pea really just rolls to the bowling ball because of the change in shape of mattress). As I said earlier, it's much easier to understand the current theories of gravity if you first understand the older theories, especially since much of Newton's theories on gravity are still considered essentially correct, we're just aware of more variables that also have an effect.

[PoisonTaffy]

I don't need proof, proof is for chumps. What's the difference between a theory that is 99% likely to be true and something that is "proven" to be 100% true? For a scientist it may mean the world, but for me they're practically the same.

In other words, if something is most probably true, I assume it is true, until counter evidence tip the scale.

For example, I'm sure extra terrestrial life exists somewhere because from what we know of the nature of life and the universe, there's a high probability that it does.

Gravity may be a theory but it's one that is even more likely to be true (since there is evidence of it) so I believe in that even more.

[sniikeri]

Q: Can something which we can't observe with our senses still be a fact?

[janis]

If we remove ourselves from philosophical debate, which has no evidence to support it (and is therefore meaningless), we can see that in science things can be proven all the time.

Actually this statement was the statement that pissed me off enough to post in this thread in the first place. I think the philosophical debate is essential if we are to give scientific reasons for why we should believe in science.

My point was that the word "theory" has different meanings, and when people say something like "evolution is just a theory" they're getting confused about which theory people are talking about.

When people say that evolution is just a theory, it is usually a linguistic device to push the whole religious denial of evolution point of view. Evolution happens to be a very useful/favourable theory. I think we are in agreement about this (and also in agreement that "intelligent design" and similar theories are useless fallacies).

I also find your claim that "Newton's theory of gravity... is still widely used" interesting. As far as I'm aware, it's only used by either people who are ignorant of our advances in knowledge, or by people as a teaching tool. Like most things, scientific knowledge is based on what came before, so it's much easier to understand the new things if you understand the old stuff first. You could equally say that "astrology theory" or "Greek mythology theory" are still used by people, but I'm not sure how that relates to my point.

Well the thing is that, under certain conditions, Newton's theory of gravity has sufficient predictive power to be useful, despite being shown to be inaccurate in some cases.

Do you believe that scientists use Newton's gravitational theory to make predictions or explain observations? Also when you talk about "Newton's gravitational theory" are you talking about the collection of postulates Newton made about gravity, or are you specifically talking about his idea that gravity is a force of attraction between matter? Which definition of theory are you using?

Indeed, when there is no need to look at more complicated theories scientists will use Newton's principles. While the intellectual framework may or may not recognise that there are other complications like relativistic effects they are not factored into many calculations.


In the practice of normal science falsificationism is of little importance to scientists. When I was working on an applied mathematics research team I was surprised with some of the actual day to day workings of science. Scientists do not abandon a theory merely because the facts contradict it. Often some "rescue" hypothesis is invented to explain what are called "insignificant anomalies" or if it can't be explained attention is directed elsewhere. Notice that scientists talk about anomalies, errors, recalcitrant instances and not refutations. We extensively ignored or avoided some entities/forces in computations in order to simplify our task, this was because the task was to solve problems.
It is not the aim of scientists in their normal practice to question the scientific knowledge. The attention is very much directed at solving real world problems. If a result does not fit well with the accepted knowledge then this is the "fault" of the scientist and not of the theory.

So, Newton's theory of gravity might be used by scientists as part of the "puzzle solving" that they engage in.

We don't know exactly what causes gravity but we have many reasons to believe that it exists and no reasons to believe that it doesn't.

What do you mean by "exists". Is gravity an entity? is it directly observable? does it exist on it's own?

To clarify, I think there is no reason to believe in things that can be objectively shown to be false (eg many theological claims). But that doesn't mean that I view scientific theories to be "true", sure they may be extremely useful but this does not make them true. The labelling of any theory as "truth" is to commit the same fallacy as many theologies, we cannot put forward statements as knowledge beyond doubt. That said, science even with probable truth is extremely useful to our lives.

[CautionFragile]

Q: Can something which we can't observe with our senses still be a fact?

Your senses are perceptive trickery. Universal truth is usually attained through sensory deprovation.

[Bringerofpie]

Q: Can something which we can't observe with our senses still be a fact?

Your senses are perceptive trickery. Universal truth is usually attained through sensory deprovation.

Also, electromagnetism. Fact. Unobservable without specialized machinery (to the best of my knowledge).

[Jeremy]

Rather than respond to Janis' post, which ignores the context of what I wrote, or fails to explain why he feels particular ways, making it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion without me having to make assumptions and hope that they're right, I thought I'd post this comment from Daniel Dennett's book Breaking The Spell which I've been reading lately.


------------------

"In fact, one of the few serious differences between the natural sciences and the humanities is that all too many thinkers in the humanities have decided that the postmodernists are right: it's all just stories, and truth is relative. A cultural anthropologist who will go unnamed recently announced to his students that one of the great things about his field is that, given the same set of data, no two anthropologists would arrive at the same interpretation. End of story. Scientists often have just such disagreements about how to interpret a shared pool of unchallenged data, but for them it is the beginning of a task of resolution: which one of them is wrong? Experiments and further statistical analyses and the like are then designed to answer the question - by discovering the truth (not the capital "T" Truth about everything, but just the ho-hum truth about this particular factual disagreement). It is this subsequent process (which may take years) that has been declared impossible or unnecessary by these ideologues, who scoff at the very idea that there are objective truths about such matters to be discovered. They couldn't claim to prove that there is no such thing as objective truth of course, for that would be to contradict themselves blatantly, and they have at least that much respect for logic. So they contend themselves with clucking presumptions and naiveté of anyone who still believes in truth. It is hard to convey how boring this relentless barrage of defensive sneering is, so it is not surprising that some investigators have stopped trying to rebut it, and settle for poking fun at it instead:

For example right now I am typing on my keyboard with the intention of creating a coherent story about the logic of postmodernism. Were someone to study me, they might look beyond that surface level intention I just offered and infer instead that what I really am doing is inventing a story from my personal experiences for the purposes of advancing my academic career. To accomplish this, they might argue, I am constructing a discourse that sets me apart from other people and thus increases my value as a writer. (The more I confuse you, the smarter I appear!) Why do I do this? Because I am a self-interested what heterosexual privileged Protestant male who uses knowledge for power (a strategy not of savvy but of manipulation and exploitation). For postmodernists, that which gets presented as the truth (e.g., this book) is an invention, just a take on reality, that masks what I am really doing - tricking everyone in order to acquire and maintain power [Sloan, 2004 pp 39-40]

The pioneers whose scientific work on religion I have been introducing - Atran, Boyer, Diamond, Dunbar, Lawson, McCauley, McClenon, Sperber, Wilson, and the rest - all have to deal with this. It can be amusing in the end, to see how they all brace themselves against this onslaught and, following in William James's footsteps, beg for an open minded audience. So much pleading! The irony is that these intrepid interlopers have been far more conscientious in their attempts to get a sympathetic, informed view of religion than the self-appointed defenders of religion have been in trying to understand the point of view and methods of those they are resisting. When the humanist defenders have studied evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience (and statistics and the rest) with the same energy and imagination that the scientists have devoted to studying histories, rites, and creeds of the various religions, they will become worthy critics of the work they fear."

Daniel Dennett, Breaking The Spell pg 262 -263

[janis]

Rather than respond to Janis' post, which ignores the context of what I wrote, or fails to explain why he feels particular ways, making it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion without me having to make assumptions and hope that they're right

Ok, I'll take this on.

Basically I think the study of science and other forms of knowledge should be studied in a scientific way. Instead of just relying on my preconceptions of what I thought science and the practice of science way I decided to study the history and philosophy of science. Interestingly enough if you look at the evidence from the history of science there are many complications that aren't immediately apparent.

and LOL as if label me as a post-modernist. My concerns with the practice of developed while I was working as a scientist and I would hope that those concerns were based on the facts and evidence available to me.

anyway I started a new thread in the discussion forum where we can continue to ramble. (I might even quote slabs of text in that topic too...)

[dyalander]

In fact, one of the few serious differences between the natural sciences and the humanities is that all too many thinkers in the humanities have decided that the postmodernists are right: it's all just stories, and truth is relative. A cultural anthropologist who will go unnamed recently announced to his students that one of the great things about his field is that, given the same set of data, no two anthropologists would arrive at the same interpretation. End of story. Scientists often have just such disagreements about how to interpret a shared pool of unchallenged data, but for them it is the beginning of a task of resolution: which one of them is wrong?

This is an oversimplified example of postmodernity in action designed to disprove it - straw man anyone?
Its not the end of the story, even if that is what this anthropologist told his students - as in science, in the humanitites there are competing theories operating all the time - schools of thought develop, they go in and out of fashion, their proofs are further supported or undermined. They are not just accepted; they are challenged, and their use is scrutinised. To say that it's the end of the story is simply a misrepresentation of the discipline in order to make a point. What postmodernism proposes is that relative measures of truth are central to the ongoing process of resoultion that occurs both within and between disciplines, whether science admits it or not.

[BainbridgeShred]

What postmodernism proposes is that relative measures of truth are central to the ongoing process of resoultion that occurs both within and between disciplines, whether science admits it or not.

Laymen's please?

I've usually been one to study postmodernism's effect on cultural institutions, but I guess that just makes me a product of my background; so for you all to be debating science on these philosophical terms seems very very silly, or at the least, out of my league.

What reason is there at all for science to even take stances on philosophical labels such as realism or postmodernism? Shouldn't all hard scientific discussion be above this and leave the po-mo debates to the fields of humanities and arts? Of course their might be some need for it when shaping a scientific discussion for students, but shouldn't that be best left for the academia?

I guess what I'm asking is if science is all that Jeremy cracks it up to be, why is it debasing itself in this way?

[dyalander]

I think if you read Jeremy's post and then mine what I mean is clear enough.

why is it debasing itself in this way?

Science isn't debasing itself - they haven't altered their methodology in response to postmodernity or recent philosophical discourse.

What reason is there at all for science to even take stances on philosophical labels such as realism or postmodernism?

To the extent that science, philosophy and postmodernism all consider the nature of knowledge they all deal with some common ground - but, why would they butt heads given their different methodologies? Because despite their differences, all test their hypotheses against others to see how they hold up. WHat each considers a valid test differs greatly, but that shouldn't and doesn't preclude comparison and discussion between the disciplines.

[BainbridgeShred]

Whaaaatever.

Still sounds retarded to me.

[EoghanMcDowell]

I believe in God, though i don't use the bible as proof of his existence. I believe in the power of ones own integrity to overcome great obstacles. I believe that humans are driven by a purpose to search for a purpose. Though when the purpose is found we realize that the purpose of getting there was to fulfill a purpose all along. I believe in love. I believe in the power of faith, and not just in religion. I believe that you can reach any goal, though it may manifest itself in many different ways. I believe that just as humans are driven to find a purpose for living, they are driven to believe in their ever constant search for a purpose.

[EoghanMcDowell]

Something i forgot to add. I also believe that one should not judge others unless they themselves would like to be judged.