When to "stop" doing science?

[CFLarsen]

I've seen this critique of T'ai Chi in multiple posts of his. It seems that he likes to post threads that challenge science, reason, scepticisim....
But i don't get the feeling it's because he believes in god or believes in what he says. It seems to me that he's just a troll or enjoys challenging peoples views. So, the question is, do we respond because we like to argue as well or do we really believe that we are trying to convince him of something?

We have to go with what people post. Since T'ai Chi has consistently argued that there is a God, and that this God is responsible for the species (and not Evolution), we have to go with that.

We have to go with what people post. And judge them on that.

 

[blutoski]

We have to go with what people post. Since T'ai Chi has consistently argued that there is a God, and that this God is responsible for the species (and not Evolution), we have to go with that.

We have to go with what people post. And judge them on that.

I've seen the same problem with The Atheist and hammegk: a tendency to be cryptic, and then spring their real opinions out and show us how wrong we were based on their mysterious ramblings.

To Wit: the latest xkcd

 

[T'ai Chi]

Please, argue the argument, not the person.

 

[Hellbound]

Please, argue the argument, not the person.

Sure.

What's the argument?

 

[joobz]

If we assume that this thread is here for the purpose of debating between science vs. religion.

perhaps we should ask the counter question,
When do stop doing religion?
If god is the answer, then no other questions need be asked. there's no need to practice faith if faith is the truth. At what point will churches disband because we know all that we are to know of god and won't know anymore until we die.

 

[Grimoire]

Please, argue the argument, not the person.

See post #149.

 

[jerwin]

Just because all the previous observations are in agreement with our theory, it does not mean the next will be.

But at a certain point, engineering takes over. A chemist may work long hours in the lab with his glassware, seeking to understand and perfect a particular process. Given enough understanding of the reaction, the process can be scaled up by a chemical engineer, but only if the yield is such that it makes economic sense to do so.

With a mature theory, there's an expectation that certain fundamental aspects of the model will work, and more time can be spent on observing and refining specific things. With an immature theory, many aspects will not be well understood, and every experiment can fail in a myriad of different ways.

 

[Grimoire]

But at a certain point, engineering takes over. A chemist may work long hours in the lab with his glassware, seeking to understand and perfect a particular process. Given enough understanding of the reaction, the process can be scaled up by a chemical engineer, but only if the yield is such that it makes economic sense to do so.

With a mature theory, there's an expectation that certain fundamental aspects of the model will work, and more time can be spent on observing and refining specific things. With an immature theory, many aspects will not be well understood, and every experiment can fail in a myriad of different ways.

I definitely agree that immature theories are more likely to fail and that mature theories are less likely. But no matter how mature a theory is, we can't think of it as gospel. We must always be prepared to reject a theory if the facts don't fit, no matter how mature that theory is or how widely accepted it has become.

This is why we never "stop" doing science. We may not be actively testing the theory, but when we come across a counter example, we must investigate and determine if the observation is either incorrect, or if the theory is incorrect.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure.

What's the argument?

It seems to be that we should determine if we should continue to investigate the universe based on the flip of a coin.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I definitely agree that immature theories are more likely to fail and that mature theories are less likely. But no matter how mature a theory is, we can't think of it as gospel. We must always be prepared to reject a theory if the facts don't fit, no matter how mature that theory is or how widely accepted it has become.

This is why we never "stop" doing science. We may not be actively testing the theory, but when we come across a counter example, we must investigate and determine if the observation is either incorrect, or if the theory is incorrect.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

All of this has been said, but Tai Chi still thinks that the only way to test gravity is to drop a pencil, and not all of the other things that depend on the theory.

He is also ignoreing the importance of funding, how long will people keep funding an investigation to confirm already confirmed results.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So... where did I say the ONLY way to test it is that way?

 

[CapelDodger]

As graphs go, this one's nonsensical.
One axis is Science and the other is Time.

And the third is Truth. A two-dimensional graph with three axes. WTF is that about?

One Science/Truth axis I could start from, but it would be almost as absurd.

 

[CapelDodger]

I definitely agree that immature theories are more likely to fail and that mature theories are less likely. But no matter how mature a theory is, we can't think of it as gospel. We must always be prepared to reject a theory if the facts don't fit, no matter how mature that theory is or how widely accepted it has become.

Newton was about as close to a saint as science allows, but Einstein explained obervations Newton could never have made and became a legend in his own lifetime.

This is why we never "stop" doing science. We may not be actively testing the theory, but when we come across a counter example, we must investigate and determine if the observation is either incorrect, or if the theory is incorrect.

A good example is the concerted attempt to refine Hubble's Constant. The assumption was that it was indeed a constant, but observation indicated otherwise, that expansion had at some point accelerated. Naturally the observations were questioned - if science had no inertia it would be as vapid as philosophy - but having passed examination a whole new field of "why?" opened up. Within, what, a decade? Yay for science - I did pick the right team to support back in my youth.

 

[T'ai Chi]

One Science/Truth axis I could start from,

People just aren't reading. Or they are, but aren't understanding. Or they are, but are being deliberately obtuse.

As already mentioned, if the general formulation does nothing for you, take x = number of coin flips, and y = % heads, and Truth = .5.

Please continue negative nitpicking.

 

[jerwin]

Or they are, but are being deliberately obtuse.

.

I'm not sure if "delibrately obtuse" is the right turn of phrase. What is the nature of the truth? That coin flips are random?

A scientific experiment is not a coin flip. The universe is not some random entity-- it behaves in a certain, somehat predictable manner-- and science is all about learning how to make predictions that are a whole lot better than chance.

 

[CFLarsen]

People just aren't reading. Or they are, but aren't understanding. Or they are, but are being deliberately obtuse.

As already mentioned, if the general formulation does nothing for you, take x = number of coin flips, and y = % heads, and Truth = .5.

Please continue negative nitpicking.

It isn't nitpicking. You are simply wrong in your assumption that scientific truth is equal to the truth you get from a coin flip.

When you flip a coin, you get either heads or tails. That's it. But in science, you don't get an either-or answer. You get a set of observations and experiments that tentatively lead toward a provisional explanation.

I know exactly where you are going with this: You want statistics - the field you claim to have an education in, but lack the most basic understanding of - to be the sole arbiter of scientific truth.

Next step will be for you to - once again - bring up PEAR/GCP as evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. All PEAR/GCP has is a lot of data which they "massage" - let's be nice and call it that - statistically, until they claim evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. (Or, buried deep down, actually admit that they don't have it)

You merely take it one step further: You want to "massage" what scientific truth itself is. You want to be one who defines what science is.

 

[CFLarsen]

So if a pill makes a person get better, you'd just stop after n = 1?

How do you know it wasn't a fluke?

No, you'd stop, because studies have shown that taking this pill does, in most cases, make you better.

You know perfectly how it works, because that's what you have indicated in your OP: By repetition, we know more and more about what works.

And yet you insist on coming up with this. You are not a debater, you are a contrarian. You simply take the opposite position, regardless of what you have said earlier.

Cue: Monty Python, The Argument Sketch.

 

[Grimoire]

People just aren't reading. Or they are, but aren't understanding. Or they are, but are being deliberately obtuse.

As already mentioned, if the general formulation does nothing for you, take x = number of coin flips, and y = % heads, and Truth = .5.

Please continue negative nitpicking.

But that isn't the way the world works. We don't get answers that are black or white, true or false, yes or no. The closest we get to that is "does the observation support my theory." If the answer is yes, then the confidence in our theory increases. If the answer is no, and our observation is correct, than our theory is wrong, and we must either reject the theory, or modify the theory so that it is consistent with all observations.

I've come up with some graphs to better illustrate the issue. As the number of observations that validate our theory increases, so does our confidence in the correctness of our theory. Our confidence approaches 1, but never actually gets there.

Then one day, someone makes an observation that contradicts our theory. This reduces our confidence to 0. It does matter how many further observations we make at this point. If we have just one counter example, our theory is wrong. Divergence to "truth" is complete. No further observations are necessary, nor useful, in determining the truth of our theory. It has been proven incorrect.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The problem with the original question, as has been pointed out numerous times, is that there isn't a magic number of trials after which we are satisfied with a theory or a law in science. It depends on what the nature of the theory is and how far it deviates from established science, some ideas take decades to become the consensus, others are accepted not long after the results are published.
The other problem is that even when an idea becomes established such as that H2O is water, it continues to be tested through application experiments such as chemical experiments which rely on H2O being water to achieve certain expected products. If water was not H2O the products could be different, therefore the thousands high school and college chemistry classes around the world are confirming on a daily basis that H2O is water by including it in their experiments.
So even when we have established that the probability of heads in a fair coin is 0.5, every time the coin is used as a way to choose between two options, the fact that the probability of heads is 0.5 is confirmed.