Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Iain,
I think you missed a point: where are the boot prints of the neighbors?
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:18:12 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
<igd.strachan@gmail.com> writes:
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
-----------
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find a massage therapy school near you. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l9de7ZWfR78ALyXhWjBIQ8qWIgUERqJ381X7MLrWDjx6mqh/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.