Re: [asa] Untestable -- Is it Science?

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:08 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
wrote:

> Yes, they are science because they are applying what is known to the
> situation.
>

All,

I like what D.F. is saying here. It is congruent with a belief that science
sometimes consists of the best understanding based on currently available
knowledge. Amazing that common sense approach becomes controversial
sometimes.

I'd like to suggest a metric about "quality of hypothesis" may be helpful
if it can be applied. The idea comes from Arthur Strahler's book
Understanding Science. On page 138 he shows a linear graph. The graph
shows the quality of a scientific hypothesis set in terms of gambling
odds. Gambling odds is the odds of a hypothesis being false when it is
asserted to be true. The graph looks linear but is logarithmic. It starts
with 10,000:1 (Poor Quality of Hypothesis) and goes to 1:1,000,000
(Excellent Quality of Hypothesis).

In the middle is gambling odds of 1:100. Greater than this is poor, less
than this is acceptable.

The key then, is to discover ways to apply the figure of merit to any given
sets of hypotheses. I mean, show where a hypothesis fits on the graph.
Some may be of acceptable quality whereas other ones, even related ones, may
be poor. This is what engineers often do in their work.

A Related Story:

Now, I showed this graph to Jamie Crannell at the Minnesota state hearings
on science curriculum standards. He dismissed it as creationist nonsense.
But the idea, as Strahler points out, comes from Percy W. Bridgman, Nobel
laureate and Harvard professor (of physics). [quote]His "operational
method" in physics considers that a hypothesis has meaning only if it can
be tested by accepted scientific procedure.[unquote] (p. 139)

 I am not saying Bridgman is right or wrong. I am merely pointing out one
should consider his ideas. As does Strahler. It is of interest to the
scientific community.

I asked a friend about this graph. My friend is a PhD in Chemistry, and an
analytical chemist at 3M. He was also a member of that same state
committee on science standards. And is now a QA manager at a 3M plant. He
has 30 years experience in the industry. He said this sort of figure of
merit is what 3M uses all the time!

I find it disturbing that a high school chemistry teacher (Crannell)
would totally dismiss techniques employed in industry because he has some
sort of burr in his saddle about creationists. And that someone such as
himself would get himself appointed to a state standards committee. The
Minnesota Dept of Ed, and the Minnesota legislature is actually listening
to people who make their decisions based on what they perceive to be "other
people's religion" rather than on sound scientific principles. And who
cause committees to go on to ignore legitimate input from scientists.

My chemist friend sent me copies of the committee's internal email. It was
shocking.
Aspersions were commonly cast about someone's religion - and thereafter
their input on science was suspect. There was no counting of peer reviewed
papers. For example, Macosko's (300+?) papers versus Crannell's (zero?)
papers. Macosko (a polymer chemist) was claimed to allegedly be involved
in some project that (again allegedly) took some Templeton dollars - and
that means according to 'committee members with an agenda to grind' that
he somehow has the wrong religion (how would the committee know what his
views on religion might be anyway?) And thinking like this was used to
formulate state policy? Incredible! Truly incredible!

So the moral is 1) Don't ever talk to someone who took Templeton dollars
because you are tainted for life no matter what you say. 2) Don't expect
state committees to use real science in their decisions when there is a
much more important cultural warfare to be pursued instead.

The loss to humanity is incalculable.

> They are acting rationally because there are different explanations for the
> crest (which I believe is hollow) too complicated to analyze for the general
> public. For one thing, from the bones I'm guessing that they cannot tell if
> the end is open or closed. I'll bet that, if you got into the specialist
> literature, there would be several technical possibilities based on specific
> reconstructions.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:21:21 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I spent a lovely afternoon today with my ten year old son at the Museum of
> Natural History in New York. This display of a pachycephalasaurus -- an
> alien-looking, dome headed dinosaur -- caught my eye. If you can't see the
> attached photos, the signage says: "we cannot be sure how
> pachycephalasaurus used their skull caps, becuase theories about the
> behaviors of extinct animals cannot be tested." So are theories about
> extinct animal behaviors "science"?
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online.<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3nLmK6DLoOeb5KqXPu5l2Xy10OC2wUXb4BnMlpGnmkOTFeAV/>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 01:34:43 2008