Can theists be rational?

[RandFan]

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

I create and maintain database management systems for cancer research. Some of the databases are simply the collection of raw data for future and often unknown cancer research (akin to meta studies).

It would be really odd to designate collection of data for a specific experiment scientific but the methodological collection of information using approved protocol and standards where there is no predetermined use as being non-scientific.

 

[fls]

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

It's hard to imagine how searching for bones is falsifiable, but searching for intelligent signals is not. On the other hand, I don't think the idea of falsifiability applies to the search for something unless it is reasonable to expect the entire domain can be searched.

Linda

 

[westprog]

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?

Is this you realising that I didn't say what you claimed I said? I'm not responsible for Bri, and I already said that I'm not particularly interested in whether SETI or paleontologists looking for bones is or isn't science. The point I'm making is that all theorising and research has to start without evidence, and that such a starting point is not in itself an indication of irrationality.

You will note that I've been responding to what has actually been posted, rather than what I assume someone is trying to assert, which makes things a bit simpler.

 

[RandFan]

Is this you realising that I didn't say what you claimed I said? I'm not responsible for Bri, and I already said that I'm not particularly interested in whether SETI or paleontologists looking for bones is or isn't science. The point I'm making is that all theorising and research has to start without evidence, and that such a starting point is not in itself an indication of irrationality.

Then I appologize but for the life of me I don't understand what any of that has to do with GStan's post but that's fine.

 

[Herzblut]

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?

Yes.

 

[Paulhoff]

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

Here is a word you should look into, Serendipity".

Paul

 

[cj.23]

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

I think the same criticism may apply to me. I spent two semester's university work in teaching science postgrad's research methodology and in particular experimental methodology, and of course history and philosophy of science. I did not mention it before lest it be construed as an argument from authority; I am quite certain I am actually fairly ignorant of the field, but not completely so.

However there does seem to be a curious pattern here...
cj x

 

[Herzblut]

I create and maintain database management systems for cancer research. Some of the databases are simply the collection of raw data for future and often unknown cancer research (akin to meta studies).

It would be really odd to designate collection of data for a specific experiment scientific but the methodological collection of information using approved protocol and standards where there is no predetermined use as being non-scientific.

I think that's a fair statement. But I strongly believe you apply your subject matter expertise to judge data relevance, hence you filter out irrelevant data. You don't cluelessly collect arbitrary data, you collect information. You try to support new knowledge built on already existing knowledge. It is simply not feasible to grow knowledge based on non-knowledge. Ask the religions (whose top priority is of course not to deliver knowledge, a sticky misconception here).

 

[Herzblut]

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

Well, I think this article

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

describes it very nicely.

May I cite it (almost) entirely, please? It is short and just brilliant. Enjoy

H

What Is A Null Hypothesis?

For this to work you’re going to have to imagine that you are a scientist. Are you in character? Good. Now in order to get that Nobel Prize you’re gonna have to come up with something pretty damn brilliant. So let’s say you have some rather exciting ideas about why you seem to lose socks at an astonishing rate. Maybe, you hypothesise, aliens are beaming down to steal one sock out of every pair you own.

• Hypothesis: the loss of my socks is due to alien burglary.

In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up. So you set up a hi-tech alien detection system and record whether times of alien activity are correlated with when your socks go missing.

​

However, when you get your results, it’s possible that any relationship that appears in your data was produced by random chance. In order to back up your hypothesis you need to compare the results against the opposite situation: that the loss of socks is not due to alien burglary. This is your null hypothesis – the assertion that the things you were testing (i.e. rates of alien activity and sock loss) are not related and your results are the product of random chance events.

• Null Hypothesis: the loss of my socks is nothing to do with alien burglary.

• Alternate Hypothesis: the loss of my socks is due to alien burglary.

The next step is to compare these two alternatives using the magic of… (cue dramatic music)… statistics.

In statistics, the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis. Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – you have to ‘refute’ or ‘nullify’ the null hypothesis. Unfortunately you have to assume that your alternate hypothesis is wrong until you find evidence to the contrary. So it’s innocent until proven guilty for the aliens.

 

[fls]

I think that's a fair statement. But I strongly believe you apply your subject matter expertise to judge data relevance, hence you filter out irrelevant data. You don't cluelessly collect arbitrary data, you collect information. You try to support new knowledge built on already existing knowledge. It is simply not feasible to grow knowledge based on non-knowledge. Ask the religions (whose top priority is of course not to deliver knowledge, a sticky misconception here).

How do you know in advance which will be data and which will be information?

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

How do you know in advance which will be data and which will be information?

Linda

Aliens send me messages via TV.

 

[fls]

Aliens send me messages via TV.

Ah, the timing is unfortunate. If this hadn't happened more than 50 years ago, alien electromagnetic activity would have been collected in support of SETI. As it was, you presumably discarded that component of the data as irrelevant in the pre-SETI era.

Unless SETI has something they aren't telling us...

Linda

 

[blobru]

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

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

Yes.

Ok. Thanks both.

I might see a useful distinction there. Prior to an hypothesis, data is "technical" or "statistical". Once you decide on an hypothesis to test, you select whatever is relevant from the collected data, and use it as "scientific" data; for data targetted to an hypothesis becomes information: it adds to our knowledge by falsifying or not falsifying certain predictions (gives us a clearer picture what's going on).

 

[RandFan]

I think that's a fair statement. But I strongly believe you apply your subject matter expertise to judge data relevance, hence you filter out irrelevant data. You don't cluelessly collect arbitrary data, you collect information. You try to support new knowledge built on already existing knowledge. It is simply not feasible to grow knowledge based on non-knowledge. Ask the religions (whose top priority is of course not to deliver knowledge, a sticky misconception here).

Agreed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Why?

It's still science. It's an answer to a question (a very limited question). You can't ignore negative results.

ETA: Doing so might lead you to the preposterous notion that aliens are sending messages that can be received on your TV (but have been missed by the radio telescope at Arecibo).

 

[westprog]

Then I appologize

No problem.

but for the life of me I don't understand what any of that has to do with GStan's post but that's fine.

The issue is whether it's rational to concern oneself with something for which there is no evidence.

 

[westprog]

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

And what is the metaphysical null hypothesis?

 

[westprog]

Here is a word you should look into, Serendipity".

Paul

Here's another one. Phlogiston. Or maybe the aether.

 

[westprog]

Why?

It's still science. It's an answer to a question (a very limited question). You can't ignore negative results.

There's a popular prejudice against "unsuccessful" experiments. If an experiment doesn't show a correlation which should exist according to some theory, that's still a good experiment if it kills a bad theory. Some of the most insightful science has sprung from experiments that fail to confirm what was expected. (See the aether again).

 

[RandFan]

The issue is whether it's rational to concern oneself with something for which there is no evidence.

?

It's odd. I think we finally get some consensus and then it all goes to hell. So we are back to the beginning?

What more can I say? {sigh}

I said "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."

And you agreed.

So, why is there a problem here?