Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Bruce,

I think you are somewhat wide of the mark in a couple of the examples
discussed here.

If two people disagree on whether a car is red or orange, then they are
surely disagreeing on definitions, not on facts. For something to be
defined as "red" then the frequency of the light must lie within a certain
range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore it is
possible, given that definition, to determine uniquivocally the fact, or
non-fact of the car being red. If someone then says "Well I say it's
orange", then they are using a different definition of Red or Orange. It
doesn't alter the fact that the frequency can be measured to be x.

As regards Michael's explanation of the missing rabbit, do you see that his
explanation is the simplest? Your explanations are clearly more complex.
If the neighbours borrowed the rabbit without asking, then an unrelated fox
that killed a different animal must have passed by the rabbit hutch by
coincidence.

What you are ignoring is the fundamental principle of economy in science,
known as Occam's Razor, which suggests that if there are two explanations
that fit the evidence equally well, then you should favour the simpler
explanation. This is not some mystical dictum dreamt up by scientists, but
has sound mathematical reasons behind it. The point is that the simpler
explanation is always the more probable, because the more complex
explanation relies on multiple coincidences, making it less likely. So
Michael's explanation that the fox killed the bunny explains everything
(missing rabbit, paw prints, traces of blood) by postulating a single act
that occurred. The neighbours borrowing the rabbit explanation doesn't
explain the footprints, only the missing rabbit, and you have to postulate
an unrelated fact to explain it. Therefore Michael's explanation is far
more likely. If you were a betting man, you would bet on it, if that was
all the evidence you had. If you were a police investigator, you would
investigate the fox/murder scenario first, and continue to do so unless
either a more likely explanation appeared, or further evidence emerged that
discounted Michael's explanation (e.g. the DNA of the killed animal didn't
match that of the rabbit).

Iain

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Michael Roberts <
michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> To me this is frightfully post-modern and relativises everything.
>
> One of dawkins' sensible comments is "show me a postmodernist at 30000ft"
> i.e. about to be pushed out of a plane. All know the results of g even if
> one cannot give a number to it. g is truth!
>
> Too much can be made of objective and subjective and today science is far
> more aware that the observer has some bearing on the results but that does
> not make everything subjective.
>
> As for proof in the eyes of the beholder, this is where rigour in science
> comes in as much for historical science as anything else. Personal belief
> can prevent any seeing as in the case of global warming deniers, who have to
> run against the whole consensus of science.
>
> Finally geology is as much a hard science as anything like physics and
> chemistry. There is hard evidence to deal with as when with some groups
> (including Harvard students) we look at the Bellstone in Shrewsbury. This is
> a rounded boulder 3ft across which has been left. Darwin mentioned as
> inexplicable in 1820s. It was realised that the rock type indicated it came
> from Scotland and its original locatioon could be worked out. That is hard
> evidence, and histroical science seeks to explain things like that. As Keith
> points out these methods have rigour .
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
> Thanks Michael. I am only trying to parse the subjective from the
>> objective. There are sincere beliefs from intelligent folks that are
>> reasonable and supportable who are diametrically opposed. Some argue
>> persuasively that nicotine is not harmful or that global warning is not
>> real, or a host of other things. I'm not picking on the age of the earth or
>> any other particular "fact" of historical science to say it can't be
>> "proven". I only say that proof is in the eyes of the beholder. If I see a
>> car and say it is red and you see the same car and say it is orange, whose
>> to say my fact is right and yours is wrong or vica-versa? Your fact may
>> have far more support and be generally accepted, but the acceptance of the
>> 'fact' as fact is up to the individual hearing about it and not by the
>> person telling it. Bruce
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.