The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

by **my_wan** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:28 am

Inquisitive wrote:What are the limits to finding what is true about the real world?

The limits are defined only in odds, and we don't even know how to define the starting odds. We have to know the ratio of *ALL* possible wrong answers to right answers for that, Not possible. So the odds are relative to the number of correct predictions of variables. Whether these variables are dependent or independent, and whether the correct predictions are true predictions or retrodictions, are important also.

That's why it's dishonest to claim science disproves God, when in reality it simply puts the odds so low you have a better chance of winning the lottery 100 times in a row. There are certain kinds of questions that you *cannot* ever answer true or false. Yet understanding why you can't is useful knowledge in itself. I can postulate an infinite number of things that don't interact with this Universe at all, but without an interaction it is not possible, or even meaningful, to ask if they are real. Even if they were real they could never effect you in any way shape or form. Same goes for a God that can choose the outcome of all experiments, only then we can even trust nature to tell us the truth in any experiment.

Science assumes nature (experiments) always tell the truth, even if were not sure what that truth is or how much truth is provided in a given experiment.If you think about science in terms of belief, you will essentially always go wrong. You can have no absolutes, only good odds. Some people find that uncertainty too disturbing to live with, yet the real uncertainty is actually less than a "belief" doctrine provides.

by **scepticity** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:52 am

the study of what is true about the real world

This assumes that reality is what you see when you look out the window. All of this, the whole scientific realist shebang, must assume that the world of ordinary perception, what we see on television, through the microscope, telescope, and so on, is in fact the real world.

IN actual fact, reality is you looking out the window and seeing the world. In doing this, your brain is performing billions of cellular operations and organising what you see into something intelligible. Then you personally will bring al kinds of pre-suppositions to what you see. You will intepret it according to your inclinations, analyse it to the best of your ability, and so on and so on. You will decide which things to research, what phenomena make sense, which theories to develop, according to this background you have which has been millions of years in the making. To you it means one thing, to me something else. I say it is a meaningless melange of chaotic particles, you say it is all part of some eternal plan.

There is no one to adjudicate this and no way of telling which is ultimately true. You will make a decision one way or the other, and that will be what you have faith in. You will believe it to be true, but you will never know for sure. It is all a matter of conjecture and as you all well know, in the end, none of it will come to anything, because we will all die, the species will become extinct, the sun will turn into a white dwarf, and so on and so on.

So - there is actually no 'real world' in any absolute sense. It is conventionally real - I know that if you step in the path of a bus, you will die, you have to pays your taxes and obey the law, and so on. But the hard fact is, if you analyse 'the real world' down to its smallest micro-components, it doesn't actually consist of anything. There are no 'eternal atoms' there. There are just various permutations and combinations of particles which come together and stick around for some period of time and then break up again and go on their way. We all have experiences and many of them match up, and so we can come to some consensus of what is real because we can find enough people around us to agree. It is the reality of consensus. We all live in a description of the world which is being continually created and maintained by our consciousness and our language.

And that is what you are looking at. It is a fact in my view that quantum mechanics and the crisis in physical cosmology has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that scientific realism is not a sustainable philosophical position any more. Certainly we can continue to do science and make discoveries and so on, but the assumption that what we are looking at is 'the real world' really is just an assumption. This is why they are calling the Higgs boson the 'God Particle'. Because I guess, according to 'the science of the real world', that is their ultimate truth. If it ain't there, we don't know anything.

Good luck with it.

by **Russell** Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:12 am

Says the above posting on an on-line forum using a compter ...

As for the OP, you could always do a bit of leg-work and do some reading yourself. A couple of goodies are
The Ascent of Science by Brian Silver
Soul Made Flesh: the discovery of the brain - and how it changed the world by Carl ZImmer
Return of the Black Death: The World's Greatest Serial Killer by Susan Scott and Christopher Duncan

by **Mr.Samsa** Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:41 am

scepticity wrote:

the study of what is true about the real world

This assumes that reality is what you see when you look out the window. All of this, the whole scientific realist shebang, must assume that the world of ordinary perception, what we see on television, through the microscope, telescope, and so on, is in fact the real world.

IN actual fact, reality is you looking out the window and seeing the world. In doing this, your brain is performing billions of cellular operations and organising what you see into something intelligible. Then you personally will bring al kinds of pre-suppositions to what you see. You will intepret it according to your inclinations, analyse it to the best of your ability, and so on and so on. You will decide which things to research, what phenomena make sense, which theories to develop, according to this background you have which has been millions of years in the making. To you it means one thing, to me something else. I say it is a meaningless melange of chaotic particles, you say it is all part of some eternal plan.

This doesn't affect the statement "the study of what is true about the real world" at all though. Even though I understand your position, let's just assume that you are entirely correct and also that it is impossible to ever comprehend reality because it is necessarily filtered through our perspective. Does this mean that science isn't the study of what is real? No, not at all. In the same way that the psychoanalysts like Freud were still psychologists despite the fact that their approach to studying how humans operate was horribly flawed and was never going to give any truths about the world.

Whether science can actually understand reality or not does not change the fact that it is attempting to study what is real.

scepticity wrote:There is no one to adjudicate this and no way of telling which is ultimately true. You will make a decision one way or the other, and that will be what you have faith in. You will believe it to be true, but you will never know for sure. It is all a matter of conjecture and as you all well know, in the end, none of it will come to anything, because we will all die, the species will become extinct, the sun will turn into a white dwarf, and so on and so on.

Okay pretty depressing but you basically just described science (with some wooish-like language). There is no way of knowing whether the results we obtained are absolute truths which is why we can only conditionally accept them - the point of science is understanding our subjective limitations and trying to rule them all out until we achieve an approximation of objectivity. This is why we don't decide to believe, or have faith, in a particular proposition or not because we realise that this will skew our results. To counter this we have things like peer-review where people in your field go through every single digit in your results and find any assertion that is not directly self-evident from the data. If you think your theory is right then you need to submit it to experiments that are rigorously designed so that the most likely outcome is that your theory will be disproved.

Yes it is all a matter of conjecture (based on observable reality and mountains of data) but this doesn't change the fact that science is the study of what is true about the real world.

scepticity wrote:So - there is actually no 'real world' in any absolute sense. It is conventionally real - I know that if you step in the path of a bus, you will die, you have to pays your taxes and obey the law, and so on. But the hard fact is, if you analyse 'the real world' down to its smallest micro-components, it doesn't actually consist of anything. There are no 'eternal atoms' there. There are just various permutations and combinations of particles which come together and stick around for some period of time and then break up again and go on their way. We all have experiences and many of them match up, and so we can come to some consensus of what is real because we can find enough people around us to agree. It is the reality of consensus. We all live in a description of the world which is being continually created and maintained by our consciousness and our language.

Again you're just describing science again. Science accepts that there may not be an absolute real world, which is why it operates on conditional truths and methodological naturalism. The part about the reality of consensus is wrong, unless you mean consensus from observable data. Whether other scientists agree with your theory or not is irrelevant. You could have every single scientist ever living think that your theory is right and an accurate description of reality - doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the evidence. Either your results are confirmed by our real world experiences, or they conflict.

scepticity wrote:And that is what you are looking at. It is a fact in my view that quantum mechanics and the crisis in physical cosmology has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that scientific realism is not a sustainable philosophical position any more. Certainly we can continue to do science and make discoveries and so on, but the assumption that what we are looking at is 'the real world' really is just an assumption. This is why they are calling the Higgs boson the 'God Particle'. Because I guess, according to 'the science of the real world', that is their ultimate truth. If it ain't there, we don't know anything.

Good luck with it.

And science only needs the assumption that it is looking at the real world - it is still the study of what is true about the real world. If scientists decide that this assumption is unwarranted and begin looking at things from another perspective, then it will still be science as it will still be the study of what is true about the real world.

by CJ Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:36 am

I would have sent this by PM but the OP has disabled his ability to receive PMs.

Hi Welcome aboard

Glad you picked one of my photos for your avatar, it's a Purple Breasted Roller and the photo was taken at Lotherton Hall bird sanctuary some years ago.

Regards
Chris

by **aspire1670** Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:19 am

scepticity wrote:We all have experiences and many of them match up, and so we can come to some consensus of what is real because we can find enough people around us to agree. It is the reality of consensus. We all live in a description of the world which is being continually created and maintained by our consciousness and our language.

If my experiences no longer tally with yours and thus any consensus we may have had has broken down who then is real; you or me, or neither of us?

edit the usual spelling mistakes.

by **Inquisitive** Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:29 am

Science should be expressed in precise language, which facilitates clear thinking. One obvious clue that many of the quasi-sciences are subpar is their quasi-scientists giving flowery and/or terribly imprecise definitions of what science is, and what a scientific theory is, in their discipline. Therefore, in the interest of promoting all true science, I have devised the following argument for a general definition of a scientific theory.

All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Thus, for those that think like mathematicians, a scientific theory only requires a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

by **UnderConstruction** Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:55 am

Science =/= Mathematics.

I prefer something more like this: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Though this may not be definitive either. Generally speaking though, it seems to be accepted that a scientific theory must explain facts and make testable predictions (I am open to being correct on this one), points which are conspicuously absent from your definition.

by **hackenslash** Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:42 am

Inquisitive wrote:Science should be expressed in precise language, which facilitates clear thinking.

Certainly.

One obvious clue that many of the quasi-sciences are subpar is their quasi-scientists giving flowery and/or terribly imprecise definitions of what science is, and what a scientific theory is, in their discipline.

Perhaps that's because they are attempting to explain things for which we have no words, and which are difficult to elucidate.

Therefore, in the interest of promoting all true science, I have devised the following argument for a general definition of a scientific theory.

All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Thus, for those that think like mathematicians, a scientific theory only requires a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Here's what you could have won.

There is a very good reason why nothing in science is taken as axiomatic. +100 internets if, given the information littered through this thread, you can work out what that reason is.

by **Inquisitive** Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:03 pm

hackenslash wrote:

Inquisitive wrote:Therefore, in the interest of promoting all true science, I have devised the following argument for a general definition of a scientific theory.

All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Thus, for those that think like mathematicians, a scientific theory only requires a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

There is a very good reason why nothing in science is taken as axiomatic.

Dont be alarmed by the word axiom, used by mathematicians. The analogous word for physicists is postulate. If you don't know that word and need a translation, it simply means "fundamental assumption."

by **Topsy** Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:12 pm

Inquisitive wrote: All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Welcome to richarddawkins.net. I hope you find some answers to your questions. Are you the admin of the forum in that link?

by **UnderConstruction** Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:19 pm

Inquisitive wrote:Dont be alarmed by the word axiom, used by mathematicians. The analogous word for physicists is postulate. If you don't know that word and need a translation, it simply means "fundamental assumption."

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but your definition sounds very much like " I pull an idea out of my ass, if it sounds logical it's a theory".

Now if that is fair paraphrasing of your definition, science don't work that way. A scientific theory has to be shown to be in accordance with observable reality or is of little if any use.

by **Inquisitive** Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:36 pm

UnderConstruction wrote:I prefer something more like this: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Then, according to your definition, Ptolemy's epicycles placed on epicycles is a scientific theory.

UnderConstruction wrote:Though this may not be definitive either. Generally speaking though, it seems to be accepted that a scientific theory must explain facts and make testable predictions (I am open to being correct on this one),

I am delighted that you are willing to be corrected. The counterexample is string theory in physics. Consider what Lee Smolin says about string theory in the magnificent essay, Why No 'New Einstein'?

UnderConstruction wrote:Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but your definition sounds very much like " I pull an idea out of my ass, if it sounds logical it's a theory".

My definition of a scientific theory requires more than just a single idea. You have misrepresented me. But you are correct that the basic principles of a scientific theory may come from anywhere. It can come from chimpanzees hitting keyboards randomly or it may even originate from some concept mentioned in the Bible. The source didn't matter to David Hilbert.

UnderConstruction wrote:Now if that is fair paraphrasing of your definition, science don't work that way. A scientific theory has to be shown to be in accordance with observable reality or is of little if any use.

Again, the counterexample is string theory. A scientific theory, considered of no use today, may be the theory of everything tomorrow.

by **UnderConstruction** Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:50 pm

Inquisitive wrote:Then, according to your definition, Ptolemy's epicycles placed on epicycles is a scientific theory.

I gave you a dictionary definition that seems reasonable and stated it may not be definitive, You misrepresent me.

I am not familiar enough with Ptolemy's epicycles to really comment, save to say that a theory can be rejected when new knowledge becomes available. So yes, maybe once upon a time it was, I do not know but it changes nothing. It is a scientific theory today? That is what matters.

I am delighted that you are willing to be corrected. The counterexample is string theory in physics. Consider what Lee Smolin says about string theory in the magnificent essay, Why No 'New Einstein'?

Yes, I am willing. It's called intellectual honesty. I do not pretend to be an expert on string theory. Why don't you tellme in what way it does not seek to explain facts or make testable predictions? I am however quite happy with the idea that the definition I presented is not necessarily the definitive one. That does not mean ex recto assertions suddenly become theory, just because I might be in error.

Edit: If I understand the Wikipedia version correctly, it is testable in theory but the experiments are highly impractical if not impossible. I see they say it's status as a theory is controversial. That does not make the definition of a theory wrong, it just means that string theory might have been falsely classed as one.

My definition of a scientific theory requires more than just a single idea. You have misrepresented me. But you are correct that the basic principles of a scientific theory may come from anywhere. It can come from chimpanzees hitting keyboards randomly or it may even originate from some concept mentioned in the Bible. The source didn't matter to David Hilbert.

So you extracted several ideas from your ass.

I do wonder if we are seeing your true motives here though.

Again, the counterexample is string theory. A scientific theory, considered of no use today, may be the theory of everything tomorrow.

A theory still has to be in accordance with reality. How is a scientific theory that is divorced from reality of use to anybody?

by **hackenslash** Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:30 pm

Inquisitive wrote:Dont be alarmed by the word axiom, used by mathematicians. The analogous word for physicists is postulate. If you don't know that word and need a translation, it simply means "fundamental assumption."

Thank you for your continued interest, but your definition is, how can I put it, completely wide of the mark. An axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no evidential support because it's self-evident. A postulate is a suggestion, or a basis for experiment, that has not been established as fact. These concepts are so hugely different that attempting to conflate them in the manner you have just done is specious in the extreme. The real analogous word for axiom used in science would be, err, axiom, except that nothing in science is ever established to such a degree, as science always leaves its truths open to the uncovering of new evidence. So in that sense, there is no legitimate analogy in science for 'axiom'. It simply doesn't apply.

by CJ Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:10 pm

Topsy wrote:

Inquisitive wrote: All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
Welcome to richarddawkins.net. I hope you find some answers to your questions. Are you the admin of the forum in that link?

Inquisitive.
Are you the administrator of the site linked in Topsy's post or not?

by **Inquisitive** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:12 pm

hackenslash wrote:

Inquisitive wrote:Dont be alarmed by the word axiom, used by mathematicians. The analogous word for physicists is postulate. If you don't know that word and need a translation, it simply means "fundamental assumption."

Thank you for your continued interest, but your definition is, how can I put it, completely wide of the mark. An axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no evidential support because it's self-evident.

Actually, that's not correct. For example, mathematicians frequently refer to the continuum hypothesis (CH) as an axiom in the context of a theorem that adjoins CH to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice, commonly abbreviated ZFC, and proving consistency assuming that ZFC is consistent. There is nothing self-evident about the continuum hypothesis. Cantor believed the continuum hypothesis to be true and Godel believed that the continuum hypothesis is false.

hackenslash wrote:A postulate is a suggestion, or a basis for experiment, that has not been established as fact.

Again, that's not correct. Einstein's two postulates for special relativity are still called postulates to this day. And all mainstream physicists agree that Einstein's 2nd postulate has been established as fact both theoretically and experimentally.

hackenslash wrote:These concepts are so hugely different that attempting to conflate them in the manner you have just done is specious in the extreme.

On the contrary, Wikipedia is correct in equating postulate and axiom and in saying that, in mathematics, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived.

by **UnderConstruction** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:18 pm

Is this why you are here, Inquisitive?

If so, I can save you the trouble. The answer is no.

by **hackenslash** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:19 pm

I suggest you actually read that wiki article, instead of skimming it for what you think supports your argument.

Wikipedia wrote:An axiom, in classical terminology, referred to a self-evident assumption common to many branches of science. A good example would be the assertion that

When an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results.

At the foundation of the various sciences lay certain additional hypotheses which were accepted without proof. Such a hypothesis was termed a postulate. While the axioms were common to many sciences, the postulates of each particular science were different. Their validity had to be established by means of real-world experience. Indeed, Aristotle warns that the content of a science cannot be successfully communicated, if the learner is in doubt about the truth of the postulates.

by CJ Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:39 pm

This guy is a Trojan horse. Appearing to be somebody we should embrace but here to promote his own agenda. Thought so.

Inquisitive, your aren't, and you've been rumbled mate. You smelt bad from the first post and I was right.

Regards
Chris

by **hackenslash** Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:59 pm

Well, he has enough posts under his belt to get his passing grade, anyway.

Well done.

by **UnderConstruction** Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:03 pm

I thought his mock indignation earlier made him look cute as a button though.

by CJ Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:34 pm

Inquisitive wrote:Science should be expressed in precise language, which facilitates clear thinking. One obvious clue that many of the quasi-sciences are subpar is their quasi-scientists giving flowery and/or terribly imprecise definitions of what science is, and what a scientific theory is, in their discipline. Therefore, in the interest of promoting all true science, I have devised the following argument for a general definition of a scientific theory.

All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Thus, for those that think like mathematicians, a scientific theory only requires a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

What an unmitigated pile of ******** a scientific theory requires evidence, physical evidence of some description(s) to support it, it can not be built on ideas alone, that is the realm of philosophy and theism, not science, which does pretty well at adequately describing the physical universe, if you don't agree with that drop a brick on your foot and argue with Newton when you meet him in heaven.

by CJ Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:35 pm

hackenslash wrote:Well, he has enough posts under his belt to get his passing grade, anyway.

Well done.

What was the "Qualification" called?

The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science

Re: The Richard Dawkins Definition of Science