S&S vs. SF in BotNS

David Duffy · 23 Dec 2011, 23:45 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: David.Duffy at qimr.edu.au (David Duffy)
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:45:11 +1000 (EST)
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W217B7526A49FB0101F45EDCFAB0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W217B7526A49FB0101F45EDCFAB0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112240846100.5783 at orpheus.qimr.edu.au>

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Lee Berman wrote:

> But who is willing to recognize that science operates on the same sort
> of appeal 
[...as religion]? 
>
> Why are "hypothesis testing" and "replicable results" and "mathematical modelling" so popular among
> scientists? Who decided these criteria constitute "proof"? Scientists did. And they did it for one
> basic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about
> themselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists.  There is no other
> possible reason.  (is there?)
>
> [btw, rigorous application of scientific method involves disproof only. There is no "proof"]

The only problem with Popperian falsificationism is that it doesn't say 
anything about where the hypothesis that is being tested comes from - it 
deals with experimental design, and with a bare-bones minimum of decision 
making after seeing the results.  Sure, in one sense all scientific 
knowledge is contingent, but logical and mathematical consistency, and 
coherence with all other currently accepted scientific bodies of 
observation are all vital.  In the Popperian framework, these properties 
are modelled as being a large number of failures to falsify ("my 
hypothesis is not falsified by an inconsistency with the laws of 
arithmetic" ;)).

Mathematical modelling is "popular" because mathematics summarizes or 
abstracts what _is_.  We don't have to have faith that "2+2=4": it 
is a simple tautology.  We don't have arguments about this, 
and we don't bother designing experiments to falsify it.  Sure, Newtonian 
and Einsteinian geometries are different, and we use experiments to decide 
which one best describes our universe, but each model is logically and 
mathematically internally consistent.

And finally, replication shows you understand something, you can do it again.
Even nonscientists like to be able to do the same thing twice and get the same
result.

Anyway, these are not things I read Gene Wolfe for ;).

Cheers, David Duffy.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net