Basics of Science?

[NobleSavage]

Ok, I'm dealing with a fundy on another board. English isn't her first language and she isn't stupid. I know where she is going with this, but I'm not sure how to give the best answer.

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of epistemology. However, I'd like to answer "no" to her question. I'd reference Carl Popper in that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

My second thought was to reference Principia Mathematica and it's failure to achieve it's goals. And then Godel's and incompleteness theorem. Anyhow, I'm out of my league and need some feedback.

 

[beero1000]

Ok, I'm dealing with a fundy on another board. English isn't her first language and she isn't stupid. I know where she is going with this, but I'm not sure how to give the best answer.

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of epistemology. However, I'd like to answer "no" to her question. I'd reference Carl Popper in that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

My second thought was to reference Principia Mathematica and it's failure to achieve it's goals. And then Godel's and incompleteness theorem. Anyhow, I'm out of my league and need some feedback.

I would say that there are no sacrosanct facts in science, as she is implying. Everything must be judged by the evidence. Science is not axiomatic in the same way math is because of this, in math we define 2 + 2 = 4 (it is perfectly reasonable to define 2 + 2 = 1 instead) and build on our definitions because there is no need for external verification - things are true because we say they are.

Science requires external verification, so you can build your knowledge on anything you want, as long as it matches the evidence. You can assume that things fall because they want to be near the earth and build your knowledge on that if you want. That works fine as an axiomatic system, but it doesn't match reality so it's off the table. Our current knowledge might seem like it's based on infallible axioms but they are all really temporary placeholders and will get thrown out as soon as experimental evidence shows otherwise.

Now, students starting fresh generally don't go through the evidence for every claim, but in principle they could, and in most cases, should.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Without a greater context it's difficult to know what exactly she is talking about. But a good example of a "no" answer is that one can develop a lot of electronics without knowing all the underlying physics. I took an electronics lab in grad school and I could follow everything we were doing with the physics until we got to the op-amp. After that, one had to consider the op-amp a black box and then build up from there. Trying to understand how a computer works by using Maxwell's equations is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[steve_bnk]

Epistemology is useless on the question. Science is a human activity as a function of the way our brains are wired,

What we call formal science is an arbitrary classification.

There is no monolithic 'science' with an organized purpose.

Chimp science

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29429405

Popper said the difference between science, religion, and philosophy is science has a a testable hypothesis. There is no special or unique scientific logic and reasoning. The objectify in science is based on the few bits of experimental data points upon which all the reasoning rests.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

Most days, my math is 1+1=10.
Except when it's 11+2=1.

Either way, part of 'learning the basics' is getting everyone to agree on what the basics ARE.

 

[untermensche]

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

The foundation of science is the evidence derived from experiment.

The foundation of mathematics is definitions.

One is an attempt to explain how the world works and the other is a tool.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

Most days, my math is 1+1=10.
Except when it's 11+2=1.

Either way, part of 'learning the basics' is getting everyone to agree on what the basics ARE.

What do you do that you actually work in binary that much?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Ok, I'm dealing with a fundy on another board. English isn't her first language and she isn't stupid. I know where she is going with this, but I'm not sure how to give the best answer.

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of epistemology. However, I'd like to answer "no" to her question. I'd reference Carl Popper in that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

My second thought was to reference Principia Mathematica and it's failure to achieve it's goals. And then Godel's and incompleteness theorem. Anyhow, I'm out of my league and need some feedback.

She's got a point. That the two of you can communicate on the issue is proof enough of some underlying assumptions IMO. How real any of it is is another question. Presumably something in the universe is real, and we each build of mental picture of what we think it is, but we don't know really know much about it. How any of that would contribute to a fundy universe is beyond me.

 

[bilby]

Most days, my math is 1+1=10.
Except when it's 11+2=1.

Either way, part of 'learning the basics' is getting everyone to agree on what the basics ARE.

What do you do that you actually work in binary that much?

Ah, I always suspected that Keith&Co. was a chat-bot...

 

[Keith&Co.]

What do you do that you actually work in binary that much?

This month, I teach and write instructional material to teach binary math, booleans, and i spend time with people who think i was making shit up when i said i can count to 1023 on my fingers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you do that you actually work in binary that much?

This month, I teach and write instructional material to teach binary math, booleans, and i spend time with people who think i was making shit up when i said i can count to 1023 on my fingers.

In a boolean world 1 + 1 = 1.

And counting to 1023 on your fingers either means a *LOT* of practice or conversion headaches. It's also awkward.

 

[Malintent]

Ok, I'm dealing with a fundy on another board. English isn't her first language and she isn't stupid. I know where she is going with this, but I'm not sure how to give the best answer.

In every science there is a basic and you base your knowledge on some foundation and then your build up. For example in maths you first learn that 2+2=4, then you start build up on this. But if you first don’t learn the basics you cannot build. Agree?

I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of epistemology. However, I'd like to answer "no" to her question. I'd reference Carl Popper in that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

My second thought was to reference Principia Mathematica and it's failure to achieve it's goals. And then Godel's and incompleteness theorem. Anyhow, I'm out of my league and need some feedback.

what does that "2" symbol represent? what does that little "+" thingie mean? How is that "The Basic"?

 

[dx713]

Ok, I'm dealing with a fundy on another board. English isn't her first language and she isn't stupid. I know where she is going with this, but I'm not sure how to give the best answer.



I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of epistemology. However, I'd like to answer "no" to her question. I'd reference Carl Popper in that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

My second thought was to reference Principia Mathematica and it's failure to achieve it's goals. And then Godel's and incompleteness theorem. Anyhow, I'm out of my league and need some feedback.

I would say that there are no sacrosanct facts in science, as she is implying. Everything must be judged by the evidence. Science is not axiomatic in the same way math is because of this, in math we define 2 + 2 = 4 (it is perfectly reasonable to define 2 + 2 = 1 instead) and build on our definitions because there is no need for external verification - things are true because we say they are.

Science requires external verification, so you can build your knowledge on anything you want, as long as it matches the evidence. You can assume that things fall because they want to be near the earth and build your knowledge on that if you want. That works fine as an axiomatic system, but it doesn't match reality so it's off the table. Our current knowledge might seem like it's based on infallible axioms but they are all really temporary placeholders and will get thrown out as soon as experimental evidence shows otherwise.

Now, students starting fresh generally don't go through the evidence for every claim, but in principle they could, and in most cases, should.

Agreed.
Your fundy seems to be confusing maths and science. I know we colloquially classify maths as a science, but, in fact, it is a tool for science. The most "sciency" parts of maths, like some information theory, are still applied maths (said without diminishing the brain power doing it takes, or its explaining power, been a math student myself in a previous era).

But while you can do maths with any set of axioms* and only care about the internal consistency of your mathematical system, you check your science with facts - in practice, you can't even prove a theory with facts, you can just disprove competing theories.
So, no, you don't have to share your axioms to do science, the facts are here for you. Of course, it's easier to communicate and agree on a starting point than restart all the experiments since the greeks (or even before them), but that's just a nice trick to be able to make some progresses within our lifetimes, not an intrisic property of science.

*: a consistent mathematical system will need a set of axioms chosen with care, of course, but I think going into this rabbit hole will only muddy the discussion. If you need an exemple, you can just explain how non-Euclidean geometries are perfectly consistent, even if a bit non-intuitive for the layman (and actually, if we veer back to science, closer to experimented space geometry, but that's another rabbit hole).

 

[skepticalbip]

Also one of the crowning glories for a scientist is to disprove a theory that has long been accepted and replace it with his new and better theory. This could be Nobel Prize time.

 

[NobleSavage]

She keeps trying to come back with the idea that there must be a "foundation" for all our knowledge. Of course she want's to say, the ultimate foundation is god.

I am glad you are quoting exactly Einstein - because before he died he admitted that following Steady State model about the creation of the world has been his biggest mistake. He would have made much more discoveries should he had a solid foundation i.e. not following a wrong models.
He did need a good foundation to base all his further works at. I think it is a time for you to shed the baggage of all your misconceptions and not to confuse conjectures( which some idiots on the internet publish as truth) with a real perception of the reality. Also to stop hiding behind some pompose theories and words and to step on the solid ground.

This seems so muddled I'm not even sure how to respond. Other than "What the fuck are you trying to say."

 

[skepticalbip]

The foundation is systematic observation and measurement of reality. From there we try to figure out from the data how to be able to predict how future observations will turn out.

 

[Horatio Parker]

She keeps trying to come back with the idea that there must be a "foundation" for all our knowledge. Of course she want's to say, the ultimate foundation is god.

It sounds more like dialectic than an argument from revelation. True, what we believe is knowledge has a foundation, and true one possible but highly unlikely explanation for that foundation is an omniscient being(keeping an open mind here for the sake of argument). It's much more likely that we don't know to what if any extent our foundation of knowledge is empirical.

My feeling is that a mystical response to this question is fine; admitting the mystery and wondering at it, but to claim that an anonymous bunch of ancient writers miraculously nailed the physical underpinnings of the universe is ludicrous. The difference is, on the one hand, what happens in our minds as we interact with the world as opposed to reality itself, that is, the universe without us.

What the religionists hate is to be limited to the realm of the mind.

 

[Jokodo]

This month, I teach and write instructional material to teach binary math, booleans, and i spend time with people who think i was making shit up when i said i can count to 1023 on my fingers.

In a boolean world 1 + 1 = 1.

And counting to 1023 on your fingers either means a *LOT* of practice or conversion headaches. It's also awkward.

There seems to be some genetic variation in how awkward it really is. I'm physiologically incapable of stretching my ring finger without also stretching the little finger unless I hold the latter back with the thumb, which means I can only do numbers of the format 01xx1 by putting my fingers on the table (or with the help of my second hand). But I know people who don't have that problem, including one six-year old.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a boolean world 1 + 1 = 1.

And counting to 1023 on your fingers either means a *LOT* of practice or conversion headaches. It's also awkward.

There seems to be some genetic variation in how awkward it really is. I'm physiologically incapable of stretching my ring finger without also stretching the little finger unless I hold the latter back with the thumb, which means I can only do numbers of the format 01xx1 by putting my fingers on the table (or with the help of my second hand). But I know people who don't have that problem, including one six-year old.

I can do it but only with a fair amount of muscle tension.

 

[doubtingt]

The bigger problem for religionists and those who defend of faith-based beliefs and/or reject scientifically supported ideas is their hypocrisy and internal inconsistency with which they accept or reject the products of evidence-based reasoning. Faith is the definitional antithesis of evidence-based reasoning. Thus, the plausible accuracy of faith-based beliefs or the inaccuracy of scientifically supported ideas can only be argued for by rejecting the validity of evidence-based reasoning as a basis for increasing the probable accuracy of ideas. To do this is to reject not only all of science, history, and every consensus idea of every intellectual discipline outside of religion, but also to reject all of one's own ideas and those of people around them that result from formal or informal reasoning about the implications of empirically observed events (which is all science really is). Every religionist engages in such reasoning (however flawed) on an almost constant basis, and most of their ideas are the result of this and not of faith. By doing this, they demonstrate implicit acceptance of the superiority of the epistemology of science over that of faith and religion, revealing that any explicit arguments they make to the contrary are just post hoc dishonest rhetoric to allow themselves to violate the principles of reasoned thought that they themselves typically adhere to, but have motivation to violate for particular ideas, especially when the objective accuracy of those ideas is not directly relevant to their well being. The reason that most of the "faithful" abandon faith for evidence-based reasoning when being accurate is a life or death situation is because deep down they know that faith has no validity in discerning the objective truth.