No scientist would discard a hypothesis because it went against Occam’s razor. It might require extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim (thanks, Carl), but this “axiom” of sciece of which you speak is a guideline for straining out things that are unlikely to be true, not for discarding them.
No duh, all epistemologies rest on axioms. This is no way makes all epistemolgies equivilant. I’ll even use the “f-word”, I take it on faith that there is an objective reality that exists whether anyone percieves it or not. And a few other postulates.* Like most of Euclid’s. But science does believe in the principle (not an axiom) that the fewer postulates you make the better, and even those postulates are sometimes held on probation. You do recall the postulate about parallel lines … still open for discussion whether or not it is true at a cosmologic level or if a non-Euclidean system makes for better predictions. That the same starting conditions will cause A to lead to B in a reproducible fashion … well chaos theory has something to say about that being a useful postulate for complex nonlinear systems, anyway.
We hold these postulates because they serve the cause of making accurate predictions of future observations which serves the purposes of our achieving the goals of our day to day life and of societal knowledge advancement. They allow knowledge to grow; revealed truths do not. Revealed truths may have their place, but they do not belong as guides to scientific study.
(We assume that which has been demonstrated before is still likely true; we do not to re-test the basis of DNA heritable material every experiment.)
*Heck, I personally accept axiomatically that some things are right and wrong no matter if anyone believes them or not, that there is Good and Evil, that some rights are “self-evident”, and that there is something out there that is beyond my comprehension or any human comprehension that some refer to as God. But these are personal beliefs not addressable by the tools of science, even as I beleive that we developed our values systems by way of evolutionary selection processes and by cultural evolution.
Dseid is saying what I’m trying to say, but much better.
Can you explain why this principle is not an axiom?
In case it’s not clear, I wholeheartedly support the scientific method. The assumptions I believe it makes (as listed above) are ones that I’m perfectly willing to make. Science has a predictive value that I’m not sure any other system can match. And it just feels right to me.
But saying that doesn’t mean that I deny that science rests on axioms, or that I believe science can justify its own veracity over the veracity of systems that start with a different set of axioms.
Daniel
Because it is not something that is axiomatically true, it is just something that has been observed as an often true state of affairs, that more often the simpler explanation, the single explanation, turns out to later be consistent with additional future observations. But not always. A guiding principle, a heuristic even, but not an axiom, not even an assumption.
And yet, I can explain any scientific result you’d like me to explain with the hypothesis, “Coyote, the immaterial and all-powerful trickster-god, made it happen that way just because he likes fucking with you. He’ll reveal himself to you if you arrange for every scientist on earth to give me all their money.”
By what principle do you reject this clearly absurd hypothesis of mine, if not Occam’s Razor?
This isn’t so absurd an example: if I recall correctly, there are Creationists who argue quite seriously that God put fossils in strange places to test our faith. Our only real way to reject this hypothesis is with Occam’s Razor.
Science doesn’t strictly say that this hypothesis is to be rejected, but I guarantee you’ll find few folks practicing the scientific method who will spend much time investigating this hypothesis.
Daniel
Ooooh, Mr. Cruise, I loved you in War of the Worlds!
Hmm…in that case, we may not disagree nearly as much. DSeid clearly admits that many of these things are axioms, and isn’t confusing them with premises. (I’m kind of wavering on Occam’s Razor, myself–on thinking about it, it seems to be somewhere between an axiom and a theory, and “guideline” might be the best word after all).
I think your arguments in this thread, and I don’t mean any offense by this, are the kind of thing I’m talking about. You seem to be a working scientist, but it seems that you’ve not spent a lot of time examining the underlying assumptions of all of science. One can certainly practice science, practice it competently and rigorously, without doing so; but I think it’s valuable to do so nevertheless, as it helps the scientist have better discussions with non-scientists.
Daniel
Daniel I reject it according to a principle not according to an axiom. It is not axiomatically true that such a statement is false, but past experiences have led me, and most scientists, to reject absurd hypotheses that require multiple explanations, in favor of simplicity and elegance. But sometimes reality is dirty and messy after all, and future study shows that Occam’s razor made a false cut.
I don’t think that we significantly disagree.
Just to clarify: I didn’t state that the axiom was that the statement was false, merely that it was likely to be false (or, to be exact, that the opposite explanation was likely to be correct).
As far as I can tell:
- There’s no way to prove that this guideline is across-the-board valid, since I can always come up with an alternate, absurd explanation for any results of your experiments that (sans guideline) must be considered equally likely; and
- If a less-parsimonious explanation turns out to be correct, it doesn’t invalidate the guideline, since the guideline only talks about likelihood.
Daniel
snork
Daniel we digress, but … the minor point here is the difference between the few axioms of science as a means of knowledge production, and principles employed in its service.
An axiom is an assumed or self-evident truth. They are not proven. You have to assume that the rules of logic are valid, for example, that reality has an independent existence, Euclid’s postulates, etc. We accept them without doubt for the purposes of that epistemology. They are true by definition. We can make deductions only after we have accepting some basic premises axiomatically. We can then proceed with a process of deduction combined with inductions which produce models of varying degrees of doubt. Science always includes an inductive component so therefore some doubt is always intrinsic to the process. The goal is to continually attempt to minimize that doubt by having your model hold up to falsification attempts. For some models the doubt is extremely small, but still nonzero.
Principles are guidelines that usually lead us to answers that later turn out to be non-falsified. Occam’s razor for example. They are not foundations of the edifice of knowledge, like the axioms are.
Now then, any thoughts on how to reach the Lekatts and future Lekatts of the world?
On the one hand, I’m still not sure I’m following the distinction you’re making. On the other hand, I think you’re right that it’s a very minor point of difference here. If Occam’s Razor isn’t an axiom, my point can stand on the merits of the other examples of axioms.
Hmm. I’m not sure I like using Lekatt as an example: I think he’s far more wrapped up in his incorrect understanding of science than most folks are. Most folks don’t care nearly that much, and it won’t crash their worldview down around their ears to find out that they misunderstand the workings of science.
I do think that starting young, with classes on how to think, would be very helpful.
Daniel
Of course I make underlying assumptions in an experiment. And, I think that this falls under the guideline of Occam’s razor. To use your example:
Our senses provide a means of detecting an objective universe.
Yes. I’m going to assume this to be true. If my experiment produces a strange result, I can examine the hypothesis that my senses are detecting a non-objective universe. Though, this is going to be very low on my list of possible hypotheses, as it is an extraordinary claim and unlikely to be the real answer. However, it won’t be dismissed, it’s just that if this is my 100th most likely hypothesis, and I test 99 before it, chances are that one of those 99 is going to be the correct one.
If it turns out that the 100th is the correct one, and I’ve detected a non-objective universe (and I’m sure it’s evident that I don’t really even understand what that means), then I better be damn sure that I’ve crossed the "T"s and dotted the "I"s because I’m making an extraordinary claim; I better have extraordinary evidence.
If my first hypothesis is true, well, then ordinary evidence will probably suffice. And, chances are that the axiom was correct all along.
I think this is the difference between scientific and religious axiomatic thinking. Science is very willing to rethink its presumptions. Look at string theory. Granted, I understand it only on the surface, but it seems to me to be flying in the face of a lot of scientific axioms about the predictability and nonrandomness of particles. Has it been accepted yet? No. It’s going to need extraordinary evidence. As it should. But, it clearly hasn’t been dismissed.
I’ve lurked long enough to know not to argue with lekatt. There is no amount of evidence that he is wrong that he is going to accept, and I see religious axioms in a similar vein.
Again, I challenge you to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis that our sense do not provide a reliable means to access information about an objective universe.
For example: some Buddhists believe that this world is an illusion. I challenge you to falsify this hypothesis, using only the tools of science.
Daniel
You have read only the links by skeptics, I won’t bother you any more, there is no desire to learn the truth. But I do hope you are right in you’re right in losing control of education and research. Perhaps we can direct it in more constructive areas.
Read some real near death experiences, not intrepretations of them. Below are some more links for you not to read.
I started my site because of statements like yours about NDEs, totally off the wall.
http://www.aleroy.com/FAQz10.htm
See, this is the difference between the credibility of the reiligious and the skepticism of the scientists. Scientists accept one axiom, look hard at its limitations and would undoubtedly drop it if they found it not to be true. Religious types accept whatever number of axioms their faith demands of them and never examine them except to defend them. (Those who do, often become considerably less religious.)
Again, Evil Captor, so what? In what way does your statement (with which I mostly agree, by the way) mean that science is superior to other worldviews?
Science has, in the past, had tremendous predictive power; I give it that. Even then, the “so what?” becomes an issue: if Allfather Coyote is just fucking with us, that predictive power could stop at any minute.
I doubt that’s going to happen, so I continue ascribing to a scientific worldview. I just don’t think that it’s scientifically proven to be superior to alternate worldviews.
Daniel
I don’t see science as a worldview; I see it as a tool within this particular partition of Reality.
Those who present it as a worldview are playing politics. The failure to separate the politics of science from the work of science (by both sides), IMO, is the cause of many of the melees in this thread.
These are the questions that brought me back to the SDMB after a long hiatus, DSeid, on a practical and individual level. I hope this isn’t a hijack, or too rambling.
I live in a small community that is highly educated, not too diverse, and slavishly accepting of pseudoscience and CAM (“complementary” or “alternative” medicine). I’m increasingly frustrated with the equating of open-mindedness with an uncritical attitude. Both local newspapers print “health” columns by well-meaning but completely pseudoscientific practitioners. The last time I went off on one of them, by a “nutritionist” with one of those bogus (according to Quackwatch ) certifications, a good friend pointed out that she’s just glad there’s an “alternative” for her particular health issue since she “doesn’t trust Western doctors.” Ooookay. So how to respond to this? I don’t want to seem to be attacking her personal experience by suggesting that it’s not evidence. That’s not an effective way of fighting ignorance.
But I don’t know how to go about it. Explaining the logical, scientific debunking of, say, homeopathy, doesn’t seem to penetrate. I have searched for material to give to misguided friends that would gently introduce them to critical thinking concepts, but have been unable to find anything that is not condescending in tone.
I came across this article in the Skeptical Inquirer, written by a former New Ager, that addresses the gap more completely than I’ve found anywhere else.
This quote struck a chord with me, and I wonder if it also relates to what Liberal has to say in post #2.
We’re pattern-seeking critters, and I see critical thinking and the scientific method as ways that humans have taught themselves not to jump to conclusions. However, it seems to me that seeking meaning is what humans do, and it’s the path of least resistance to go with dogma (be it religious, spiritual, New Age, scientific…) than to accept that there might not be a “meaning” beyond what we make for ourselves.
Not only that, I would contend that the search for meaning has become quite a profitable industry, providing even more incentive for promoting the equivalence of religious or pseudoscientific “theories” with actual scientific theories.
Back to the OP: What do we do about it? How can we try to teach people to think critically? Well, where’s their incentive? Why should they? What might they be giving up in the process? Maybe if we look at it from a different perspective, we’ll find a way to approach that doesn’t threaten?