Can theists be rational?

[Herzblut]

I must say, this thread has been most interesting, if only to discover that some people have some very strange ideas about just what it is that scientists do.

Do not despair, I remember vaguely what I did while I researched and taught students at my University's Institute of Theoretical Plasma Physics.

 

[Paulhoff]

The religious method;

We have this story about Noah and the flood. Now let’s take everything learned about earth’s geographic history and make to work to prove that it happened.

The scientific method;

We have the Grand Canyon. Now let’s use what has been learned so far about the earth’s geographic history and things learned from other scientific disciplines, we will try to come up with a theory that fits what is observed there and on the way. We will most likely find out what is wrong or right about the other scientific disciplines and our now theory, and also learn things we didn’t think of, serendipity will happen.

This will also happen with SETI.

Paul

 

[fls]

Do not despair, I remember vaguely what I did while I researched and taught students at my University's Institute of Theoretical Plasma Physics.

It wasn't my intention to exclude scientists (if that's what you considered yourself) from "some people".

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

It wasn't my intention to exclude scientists (if that's what you considered yourself) from "some people".

Linda

Hence, scientists don't know what they are doing? I wouldn't go that far, to be honest.

 

[Herzblut]

No it isn't. We now know that nobody in our neighborhood is directing a narrow beam radio signal at us within a given window of time (depending on the distance from us). That definitely is a result.

A negative result? I was more thinking of positive results.

 

[Herzblut]

This will also happen with SETI.

Says who? Obama? Your crystal ball?

 

[Paulhoff]

Says who? Obama? Your crystal ball?

History with science. It seems you didn't learn much when teaching.

Paul



Get better students next time.

and Obama, please put your straw-man away.

 

[fls]

Hence, scientists don't know what they are doing? I wouldn't go that far, to be honest.

I dunno. Scientists as a group don't seem all that inclined to wax philosophical. Some might answer "write grants and perform experiments" when asked what it is that they do.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

Mr Smith's wife is stabbed to death. Mr Smith doesn't have an alibi. Is that evidence he did it? No.

It's also not evidence that he may have...

Mr Smith was known to hit his wife. He has a bad cut on his hand. His blood was found at the scene of the crime. Is that evidence that he did it? Yes.

It's also evidence that he may have...

Call it a spectrum of evidence if you like - but clearly the fact that it's possible for someone to have done a crime is not considered to show that he did do the crime.

That's a useless distinction, then. Clearly. What you are effectively saying is that the fact that B was murdered is, in and of itself, evidence that ANYONE on the face of the planet could be the culprit. In fact, it could even be construed as evidence that aliens did it, or that some imagined non-existent entity did it. Of course, finding a dead body with a bullet in its head on a street in London and no murder weapon to be found isn't evidence that Mr. Jack down in South Africa may have done it. Of course, he could have done it. It's a bare possibility. But if that's what you were arguing then you're just wasting bandwidth and time.

 

[westprog]

Westprog, I'm still waiting. I don't think ignoring this helps you at all.

How kind of you to think of me.

Let me repeat what I said before, in slightly different words. The way we tell whether the coin is unbiased is to make throws. If the coin is unbiased, all the sequences are equally likely, including HHH...(30). However, if the coin is biased so that only heads can be thrown, HHH...(30) has probability 1.

In order to derive no conclusions from the 30 H sequence, we need to assign, quite arbitrarily, a probability of 0 to the coin being biased. On what basis you do this I don't know. It seems to be some kind of magical certainty. And I'll say again, that it's a belief that could prove very costly when dealing with charming strangers and games of chance.

 

[Belz...]

Just to show how dishonest this has gotten...

You have argued that gathering data or simply observing is not scientific.

I argued no such thing.

Really ?

It's also not an unfair criticism of SETI to point out that they are trying to prove an unfalsifiable proposition, which arguably isn't science at all.

 

[Belz...]

How kind of you to think of me.

Let me repeat what I said before, in slightly different words. The way we tell whether the coin is unbiased is to make throws. If the coin is unbiased, all the sequences are equally likely, including HHH...(30). However, if the coin is biased so that only heads can be thrown, HHH...(30) has probability 1.

In order to derive no conclusions from the 30 H sequence, we need to assign, quite arbitrarily, a probability of 0 to the coin being biased. On what basis you do this I don't know. It seems to be some kind of magical certainty. And I'll say again, that it's a belief that could prove very costly when dealing with charming strangers and games of chance.

The problem with this line of thinking is that you are the one making sure that the only possible explanation for HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH is a biased coin. You are working backwards from the result to the premise, effectively saying that since, were the coin biased we'd be more likely to get that result, then it's more likely that the coin is biased. A -> B therefore B -> A, which is, of course, completely wrong to anybody with knowledge of boolean logic.

The problem is, of course, that once you DO get the results it's impossible to determine anything about their cause without further information, because as we've already said every result is equally likely. Ergo, you should check the damn coin. Only after doing so can you reach a conclusion about the cause of the draw. Being a role-player I have often come up with weird die results, but I didn't conclude that my die suddenly became crooked for that one time.

By your logic, someone drawing a royal flush the first time around is probably cheating, because it's easier to get a royal flush if you cheat. I don't need to point out how ridiculous that is.

 

[westprog]

This will also happen with SETI.

Or else it will turn out to be a total dead end, which is also part of science.

 

[westprog]

The problem with this line of thinking is that you are the one making sure that the only possible explanation for HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH is a biased coin. You are working backwards from the result to the premise, effectively saying that since, were the coin biased we'd be more likely to get that result, then it's more likely that the coin is biased. A -> B therefore B -> A, which is, of course, completely wrong to anybody with knowledge of boolean logic.

It's not a matter of boolean logic, it's a matter of probabilities. You started with the premise that the coin was unbiased, without any reason to suppose it. All you know about the coin is that it produced 30 heads in a row.

How does one estimate whether a coin is biased? The simplest way is to keep throwing it. A sensible person would throw 30 heads in a row and draw the conclusion that it was biased. If he thought "Well, such an event might happen every billion times or so, so I can't rule out chance totally" he could throw it another thirty times. If he threw sixty heads in a row, he'd consider it certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the coin was biased.

The problem is, of course, that once you DO get the results it's impossible to determine anything about their cause without further information, because as we've already said every result is equally likely. Ergo, you should check the damn coin. Only after doing so can you reach a conclusion about the cause of the draw. Being a role-player I have often come up with weird die results, but I didn't conclude that my die suddenly became crooked for that one time.

And suppose you can't check the coin physically? I'd suggest that the only way to decide whether it's biased or not is to throw it.

By your logic, someone drawing a royal flush the first time around is probably cheating, because it's easier to get a royal flush if you cheat. I don't need to point out how ridiculous that is.

It is however correct. And if you are playing poker with someone who deals himself a royal flush, and you simply discount the possibility that they are cheating, you are going to have people queuing up to play with you.

 

[westprog]

It's also not evidence that he may have...



It's also evidence that he may have...

Yes, the one implies and includes the other.

That's a useless distinction, then. Clearly. What you are effectively saying is that the fact that B was murdered is, in and of itself, evidence that ANYONE on the face of the planet could be the culprit.

Well, that's a starting point. Eliminating the people who certainly didn't do it would be a good first stage. "Who do you suspect?" "Everyone".

That's not to say that all suspects will be equally probable. As I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread, it's not sensible to assume that all possible explanations are of equal value.

In fact, it could even be construed as evidence that aliens did it, or that some imagined non-existent entity did it. Of course, finding a dead body with a bullet in its head on a street in London and no murder weapon to be found isn't evidence that Mr. Jack down in South Africa may have done it. Of course, he could have done it. It's a bare possibility. But if that's what you were arguing then you're just wasting bandwidth and time.

 

[blobru]

I'm guessing that you have no scientific background. It may interest you to know that gathering data and observation are part of the scientific method even when they are not being used as evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

Linda

Wrong. Data as such is completely irrelevant if not carrying information. Nobody collects such crap, except maybe blond women.

I'm confused here (nothing new).

I took fls to mean something like recording weather data each day. The meteorologist isn't performing an experiment, but the data may be useful some day to test an hypothesis about weather patterns. Maybe not.

Herzblut: do you mean such data isn't "scientific" until used to test an hypothesis?

I may be misunderstanding either or both of you. Apology in advance.

 

[RandFan]

You keep stating that "there is no evidence of aliens" and that "SETI is looking for aliens." To put a finer point on it, Scientists are looking for life. There is evidence of life. Life exists. Life has existed on this rock for perhaps a couple of billion years. But only for the last 100 years, out of 2 billion, has life on this rock evolved to the point where we could conceptualize and make legitimate progress toward discovering life on other rocks in the universe (there are a lot of rocks out there). Go back and replace the word "alien" in your posts with the word "life" and I think, while you may not be convinced of the opposing side of this argument, you may at least end up with a greater appreciation for the opposition.

There is plenty of evidence that ET life might exist. There is no evidence* that ET life does exist. It should be noted that SETI is searching for evidence of aliens - life as such would not be detectable at interstellar distances AFAIAA.

To make their decision to search for a transitional form between fish and crocodiles the scientists relied on evidence that bones for a creature like Tiktaalik MIGHT exist. They had no evidence that it did exist.

Science does not operate on perfect knowledge. They make inductive guesses based on the best evidence that they have at their disposal and they are often wrong.

You seem to be making inductive guesses about my opinions based on imperfect knowledge. I am well aware how science works, and my post above doesn't contradict that.

If you accept the premises then you must accept the conclusion, SETI isn't doing anything different than other scientists like palentologists and archeologists.

And I disputed this when?

Ok, you are responding to GStan. GStan is responding to Bri. Bri's argument (see post #1578 below) is that what SETI is doing isn't science and that what palentologist and archeologists are doing is science. She is saying there is a difference.

So, do you wan't another crack at it? Do you agree with Bri (see post #1578 below) or do you agree with GStan?

 

[RandFan]

And what exactly are paleontologists and archaeologists doing that SETI isn't or vice versa?

They are looking for something for which there is evidence in order to test falsifiable hypotheses.

Not any different than SETI.

SETI is looking for something for which there is NO evidence in order to prove an UNFALSIFIABLE hypothesis.

1. According to Bri: The work that SETI (so-called) scientists are doing is NOT scientific.
2. According to Bri: The work that paleontologist and archaeologist perform IS scientific.
3. According to Bri: Paleontologists are trying to prove a falsifiable hypothesis.
4. According to Bri: SETI scientists (if they can be called that) are trying to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Never mind the problems with contradictions between proving and falsifying. What is this falsifiable hypothesis of the paleontologists and how does that differ from the hypothesis of the SETI (so-called) scientists?

 

[fls]

I took fls to mean something like recording weather data each day. The meteorologist isn't performing an experiment, but the data may be useful some day to test an hypothesis about weather patterns. Maybe not.

If I had an example in mind, it was probably medical (no surprise there), but yours is a good example as well.

Linda

 

[RandFan]

Null Hypothesis

SETI: Science, or Religion?

One does not gauge scientific credibility by short-term success in validating a particular hypothesis -- after all, it took more than half a century to produce compelling evidence to support some of Einstein's theories. What marks a field of study as scientific (or not) is the testability (or, more properly, falsifiability) of its underlying hypotheses, and the level of rigor brought to the related experimental design. When we demand the highest possible standard of proof before accepting proffered evidence, we are applying the scientific method -- hence, are practicing science. This is, I believe, what differentiates SETI science from UFO pseudoscience.

The accusation that SETI is based upon a non-falsifiable hypothesis is valid only if one believes that the objective of SETI research is to prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Any experiment which adopts that goal is poorly designed, because it becomes open-ended. Better to establish a null hypothesis, which it takes only one counter-example to disprove. For example: I would hypothesize that there are no extraterrestrial civilizations that emit artificial electromagnetic radiation which can be detected on Earth, at our current level of technology. Presently (and for more than 40 years), our research supports this hypothesis. But a single confirmed detection would falsify the null hypothesis, thus lending credence to an alternative hypothesis (that we are not alone).

SETI is scientific. SETI employs sceintistst to conduct scientific experiment in an attempt to falsify the Null Hypothesis which is a valid scientific approach.