RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (605) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2017,12:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 11 2017,22:41)
In case you did not know, with thanks to a UMass StemEd physicist (all in local science education know and trust for good advice in such matters) I revised page 9 of the "Cognitive Origin of the Scientific Method" presentation, I had rushed together for the online 2016 Alternatives to the Scientific Method philosophy conference. With my having this online for others to use it was worth pestering Mort for his opinion of the Theory, Hypothesis, Model and Law related content. It passes along a couple of physics related hypotheses/questions he used to explain to me what was missing:

The rushed scientific method presentation needed work, but the (still fine to go the way it is) theory of you know what is still online, for anyone who needs to know what a truly scientific one looks like. As expected: this turned out to also be true:

And why am I not surprised?;f=14;t=6034;st=390#entry257255

And why am I not surprised?

Well, you should be - the closest thing you have to a prediction is that everything is self-similar.

From your latest version (which is still problematic):
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.)  An hypothesis can be a claim or assertion stated for the purpose of testing (“The mean of sample X is larger than the mean of Sample Y” vs “Not larger than”) or it can be a proposed explanation of something, again ideally or typically stated in a form that is amenable for testing.  Not all hypotheses are testable (there’s a reason scientists can talk about “testable hypotheses” without being redundant), but largely hypotheses aren’t scientifically useful until they are testable and (best) until they are worked into sets that are mutually exclusive and cover all possibilities.  Ideally, scientists test multiple, mutually exclusive, working hypotheses at the same time.

For crying out loud, why are you relying on a kid's TV show when it is greatly oversimplified for a preschool audience?  It's like arguing about relativity on the basis of "I am Albert Einstein", or astronomy on the basis of what you learned from watching Star Wars.

Experiments are designed to test ideas in the form of theories, conjectures and questions.


Many hypotheses are intended to gather information without preconceptions.
What kind of fossils are in this layer?
What is the mass or magnetic moment of this nuclide?
Can we find more pulsars?

No, those examples are not hypotheses.  Those are research questions, not hypotheses.  Also, they are not in any way testable in the stated form.

The result should as best as possible repeatedly be either true or false, hopefully no uncertainty.

Yes, absolutely, see “in a form amenable to testing”.  In what way is “What is the mass of a nuclide?” testable?  This is why you have no hypotheses worthy of the name.

Uncertain results may require the hypothesis be retested with a better experiment, or reworded.

Yes.  You haven’t stated any acceptable hypotheses, so you are not even at the stage of needing to reword them.

Hypotheses may be philosophical or religious, but being scientific requires conducting a scientific test.

Mangled but essentially true.  Hypotheses may stem from philosophical or religious concerns, but to be a scientific hypothesis, it has to be stated in a form that can be addressed by science.

A "model" demonstrates how something works/happened.
A (computer, engineering or mental) model is a simplified description of the systematics of a process.
Models provide general insights, and are not normally expected to be the whole story.
I have no quarrel with any of that.  I would add that some models can constitute a test of whether we adequately understand something.

Charles Darwin's "evolution by natural selection" theory contained a generalized “mental model”


......but the "natural selection" variable is a generalization that does not explain how living things work.

No.  Natural selection is a well defined, relatively easily measured, and well documented process.  (It may be a variable in some computer models, but that’s another matter.)  It is only intended to explain one process of evolutionary change and speciation.

Questions regarding intelligent behavior requires [sic] cognitive models.
First, they require valid and usable definitions so that the questions are not meaningless garbage, let alone the answers.  You still don’t have that.  (Well, you have the garbage, but not the valid and usable definitions.)

Instead of “selection” based terminology the basics become confidence, memory and guess.

You still don’t have usable operational definitions, valid regular definitions, or any indications that those things do what you claim in your model.  You have yet to demonstrate that your model is applicable to reality.  Your claims against natural selection are false.  Your claims do not follow from your model.  Your text contains logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors of fact.

What is called “natural selection” may happen on its own in a model, not need to be programmed in.

Even where there is this overlap there should be no inherent conflict between models, or their theory.

Not sure what you mean.

A "theory" explains how something works/happened.
The explanation can use words, equations, illustrations and other useful information.

Yes.  Your not-a-theory doesn’t do that.  Also, to become a theory, an explanation has to meet a certain level of acceptance and confirmation (or to have done so in the past).  Somebody saying “I have a theory” is not sufficient.

The scientific theory in books by Charles Darwin explained how his model for speciation works,
which is now computer model tested using various Genetic/Evolutionary Algorithms.


The scientific theory in books by Albert Einstein explained how his cosmic model works,
which is now computer model tested by various models of the universe(s?).


For a scientific theory to be useful it has to explain a model/mechanism to experiment with.

Yes.  You haven’t done that.  Without operational definitions, no one, including you, knows what you are talking about, so nothing in your stuff can be experimented with.

Where that is left up to reader's imagination no theory even exists, which is scientific fraud.

Yes, you are in that category.

A "law" is a math equation or relationship that approximates a behavior.
Newton's laws of motion are regularly used to calculate planetary orbits.
Einstein's laws of relativity are required for calculations where the speed of light is a factor

Yes, laws describe patterns / behaviors.  (No one says this, in large part because scientists tend not to announce "laws" any more and in part because laws are supposed to be grand while most hypotheses tend to be highly reductive, but in effect scientific laws are what you get when hypotheses that are non-explanatory pass all their tests.)

  18133 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (605) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]