Scientific method

[Martin Meredith]

The upshot is that science cannot determine human values or tell us what’s objectively true about morality or give answers about right and wrong. The domain of science is to describe nature and explain those descriptions in terms of deeper patterns or laws. Science cannot tell anyone how to live or how to think.

Surely we are part of this nature that science can describe? I think it is respectable to believe that free will is an illusion and that we are (very) complex machines. Science will eventually not only tell us how we think, but also why we think and behave in the way we do, why we make (illusory) decisions one way and not the other, etc -- though we won't get the complete story for some years yet, perhaps millennia away. As for human values (such as they are), I think science can go a long way to explain where they come from and what the likelihood is of things developing differently given a million different civilisational restarts. 

I'm not going to introduce religion into the debate but use it as an analogy. Some religionists express the view that atheism is a depressing point of view in the way it circumscribes human existence to the here-and-now. In the same way I've heard the argument from those who believe in free will that accepting our essential "machine-hood" is to lose any sense of purpose. Not a bit of it. The illusion of choice is so strong that we can act as though we have free will without having to deep down actually believe it…I can be first-and-foremost emotionally affected by a piece of music or the view from the top of a mountain or the sight of an old friend without worrying too much about whether I as a complex machine should place any value on these complex-yet-deterministic reactions.

However, this strong "pro science" position should not be confused with some blind belief in the results of scientific research. As a practitioner I see that the bulk of research leads to dead ends, or carried out to meet some top-down metrics, and is sometimes plain wrong. But science per se is above all of that. Progress in science needs at least two elements: genuine creativity, and the so-called "scientific method". Nothing in the application of the scientific method alone guarantees progress, but as a tool for evaluating hypotheses in a fair manner it has no equal. 

cheers

Martin

[Zakalwe]

I'm not going to introduce religion into the debate but use it as an analogy. Some religionists express the view that atheism is a depressing point of view in the way it circumscribes human existence to the here-and-now. In the same way I've heard the argument from those who believe in free will that accepting our essential "machine-hood" is to lose any sense of purpose. Not a bit of it. The illusion of choice is so strong that we can act as though we have free will without having to deep down actually believe it…I can be first-and-foremost emotionally affected by a piece of music or the view from the top of a mountain or the sight of an old friend without worrying too much about whether I as a complex machine should place any value on these complex-yet-deterministic reactions.

Good point, well made. I'm pretty sure that the Universe is under no obligation to make itself palatable or either uplifting or depressing to the evolved primates that inhabit the third rock out from a mediocre star in a fairly typical galaxy.

However, this strong "pro science" position should not be confused with some blind belief in the results of scientific research. As a practitioner I see that the bulk of research leads to dead ends, or carried out to meet some top-down metrics, and is sometimes plain wrong. But science per se is above all of that. Progress in science needs at least two elements: genuine creativity, and the so-called "scientific method". Nothing in the application of the scientific method alone guarantees progress, but as a tool for evaluating hypotheses in a fair manner it has no equal. 

Another good point. IMHO the people that talk about blind belief in science, or the scientific method being "just another belief system" are the people that know the least about science. Scientists, in the main, are the most sceptical of thinkers and constantly question their findings. As someone once said: the most exciting words in science are not "Eureka" but rather "Hmm, that's unusual".

[Qualia]

Science will eventually not only tell us how we think, but also why we think and behave in the way we do, why we make (illusory) decisions....As for human values (such as they are), I think science can go a long way to explain where they come from....

Martin, it isn't these kind of descriptive sentences that has been given a thorough critique but the inference from this to persciptive - normatively loaded - sentences.

Formally, we could say that as far as demonstrative reason is concerned, if there is no mention of ‘ought’ or 'should' in the premises, there can be no ‘ought’ etc in the conclusion. The same is true of ‘octopuses’.

[Cath]

One of the problems with the models we are creating, is that we are the ones creating them

[ollypenrice]

One of the problems with the models we are creating, is that we are the ones creating them

Quite so, and succinctly put. The hammer hits the nail. I do think that this is fundmental but it leads me directly to That Which We Must Not Discuss. It does also lead me to question science at a fundamental level as you are clearly doing. My conclusion is not that science is invalid but that it is performed by humans, with human senses (extended by gadgets) using human brains in human language. I'm not hugely moved by the idea that maths is an absolute language because it has no absolute vocabulary beyond number (out of my depth but hey-ho!) so I think that our 'scientific' view of reality is likely to be pretty anthropomorphic. The virtue of science is that it can acknowledge this - and it should. This is philosophy of science but science does need philosophy. 

I guess reality is out of our reach (but never say never.) However, a good description of how reality interacts with us is worth having.

Hehheh, then again, who invented that word 'reality?' Uh-oh. 

lly

[Cath]

I agree, I too don't think our science is invalid, I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't continue with our science, quite the opposite really.

Just trying to say that our science is however totally based on how we experience and view the world around us. Their is nothing much we can do to change that though, we are what we are, and we are severely limited. We are doing the best we can with the tools we have at hand (our senses, our thoughts, our machines), which is all we can ever really do at the end of the day.

Reality, I guess is totally viewer based ?

[Paul M]

I've been left so far behind by modern physics that I really don't know where they're up to!

For a long time I've been troubled by the thought that mathematics is having too much of its own way. Maybe its taking advantage of the fact that some of the crazier ideas are so esoteric that we could be told any old tosh and not know if it was being tested or not. Even more worrying is the idea that it could be acceptable for it not to be tested!

I really don'y know how it works, even on the basics.

Take Pythagoras Theorem. One of the few mathematical concepts I do understand. I can see how it works, it's easily testable. As a boy I tested it! The outcome was that the theorem was more accurate than my drawing and measuring skills

The beauty of geometry.

Then I learned of Ohm's Law. An equally simple concept but not apparently rooted in geometrical concepts. However it is testable and again I have tested it. You'll all be relieved to know that it is correct to within about 5%

But why does it work? Why does a physical process conform exactly to a simple formula? What is the connection between physics and maths? Sorry, I know it's a basic question. Or is it?

When I was 16 and studying for the Radio Amateur Exam a retired mathematician at the local radio club gave me some tuition. He taught me Ohm's Law very well. When he moved on to the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem I was terrified. However, he stood before the class and built it from the ground up using nothing but Ohm's Law. It was beautiful. Certainly the best maths lesson I ever had. Sadly I've retained nothing of it

As beautiful as it was I was still asking myself "why?". Why does an electron care about a bunch of numbers on a blackboard ?

Or, the other way round: How does a limited set of mathematical rules explain so much stuff?

Fortunately I console myself in the knowledge that all that "stuff" is testable.

So what about the weird modern stuff? String, Superstrings and Membranes and Multiverses and hidden dimensions? They are described by the same rules as Pythagoras Theorem and Ohm's Law. Is it ok to accept these ideas without real world proofs?

If the maths is absolutely correct, does a mathematical model have to represent a reality? 

My own feeling is that reality might well  be always describable with mathematics but not everything that mathematics describes need be a reality. With that in mind, surely physics must always be tested?

There are too many blind alleys out there....

[Zakalwe]

Reality, I guess is totally viewer based ?

I disagree.

A cannonball will always fall towards Earth, no matter who (or what) is observing it. Light will always travel at c in a vacuum, again regardless of the observer. It doesn't matter if the observer is  Joe Bloggs or n'Trang from the planet X. Certain quantum effects (the double-slit experiment) will act differently when observed, but it has been shown that an electronic sensor will cause the same effect as an organic eyeball.

Which sort of leads us full circle- does mathematics describe the fundamental nature of reality? I have heard some mathematicians argue strongly that, yes, it does, hence the viewpoint that mathematics is a Universal language.

[Cath]

Light will always travel at c in a vacuum

Our thinking on that one 'may' soon change. Needs more investigation to find out if their measuring method was floored or not I guess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

Which is what I'm saying. We should never get locked into thinking that what we currently believe as being true, we really shouldn't think like that, it's a hinderance. It's a way of thought that has been with us throughout human history, it's often held us back for long periods of time over the past centuries etc.

[Zakalwe]

Our thinking on that one 'may' soon change. Needs more investigation to find out if their measuring method was floored or not I guess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

Which is what I'm saying. We should never get locked into thinking that what we currently believe as being true, we really shouldn't think like that, it's a hinderance. It's a way of thought that has been with us throughout human history, it's often held us back for long periods of time over the past centuries etc.

Light has been slowed to a complete standstill in a Bose-Einstein condensate. That's not quite the same as light travelling in a vacuum, is it?

As for getting "locked into thinking that what we currently believe as being true", well, that tends to only happen in religion and faiths (as Tim Minchin says " Science changes it's viewpoint based on observation whereas faith ignores observation so that belief may be preserved"). Scientists constantly question things. That's why Einstein's theories are still being tested 100 years after they were formulated. The scientific community is the most sceptical community out there

[Piero]

Surely science is a means of exploring nature.  Science involves testing a hypothesis against real events to see if the hypothesis can be disproved.  Any means of explaining nature that is not tested or testable is just conjecture - it ain't science.

Thus it surely follows that anyone who tries to explain nature purely by conjecture is a philosopher, not a scientist.

I like your post and made me think a lot. 

From my point of you your post is true if you strictly associate Science with hypothesis testing.

Therefore, it follows that any means of explaining nature without testing the hypothesis is not science. 

I agree that a form of hypothesis testing is necessary in Science, but I disagree that a conjecture is not science (or part of it). 

The way that I see, conjectures and hypothesis testing are two parts of the scientific process, and conjectures are only a primordial step of this process. 

What I mean is that to me Science is the entire process involving: 

1. thinking of a problem

2. conceiving an idea 

3. give to this idea a formal structure (hypothesis)

4. finding in literature ways to support or disprove this hypothesis

5. design an Experiment (or formal logic) to disprove / approve your hypothesis

6. finding and designing additional controls to your experiments / reasoning

7. formalise the entire story

8. publish it 

Therefore, the point to me is the attitude behind. Having a conjecture is only part of this process, but the person formulating it, has to recognise that this is only a conjecture and cannot call it theory or scientific knowledge.

Of course, from this conjecture, one can establish novel scientific knowledge through experiments or formal logic, depending on the problem.

With this in mind, if a person declares his/her conjecture as a dogma (e.g. religion), that person is clearly not a scientist! No doubt about it. 

In addition, the scientific method using repeated experiments + statistics is to me, just one way to do science. This is the case of natural and physical sciences for instance. 

What about formal proofs of mathematical theorems? To me this is still science, because you still are assessing the validity of a hypothesis rigourously. In this case, your background knowledge is theoretical (theorems) and not natural, but you are still applying the same investigation process.

In conclusion, what I am saying is that to me your sentence "Any means of explaining nature that is not tested or testable is just conjecture - it ain't science." would be more correct as 

"Any means of explaining nature that is not tested or testable is just conjecture - it is an incomplete piece of science, and as such, cannot be used for deducing or inferring other scientific knowledge."

This is at least my opinion.

Anyway, I thank you for your post again.

Piero

[Piero]

Wasn't it Aristotle who theorised men have more teeth than women? Since he successfully argued it must be so (for reasons I either forgot or never bothered reading) it was accepted men did indeed have more teeth than women. If only he bothered with a simple experiment of counting teeth...

To me that pretty much sums up theories...they are so much more convincing if there is at least some attempt at providing supporting evidence, otherwise its just philosophy, and even great philosophers can be wrong.

Even great scientists can be wrong but this does not mean that you reject them just because in different conditions their theories do not work.. 

One famous case of this is Newton's theory of gravity which does not include relativity...

This does not mean that you discard Newton, but just that you accept what Newton said and you apply it only for that specific context.

Same for philosophers. Maybe Aristotle created a silly syllogism for twisting the minds of future generations, but this does not mean that all what he said is rubbish, just because you don't have empirical testing for all his prepositions

[Piero]

A theory untested isn't a theory, it's an hypothesis. Science needs these, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell has argued that we have not spent enough time thinking about how these initial hypotheses are generated. That seems like a good point. Once generated, they need testing. That also seems like a good idea. Someone who doesn't think that this is a good idea sounds like someone who spends too much time working with computer models - or so it seems to a scientific spectator like me. Could we be passing through a phase in which we are in danger of being seduced by what our simulators tell us?

Olly

If someone does not think that generated hypotheses DO NOT need any form of testing (formal or experimental) is a not working in a scientific manner, but he/she is doing something else. 

The comment on computer models is irrelevant and unjustified. 

You need computer models, because without them you would spend a fortune to test every single hypothesis. 

This does not mean that you use computer models not to test experimentally at all. It just means that you can create some predictions and discard some scenario with a minimum of substance, rather than investing tons of money in testing for whatever idea crosses the mind of a person. Of course, if you find good and interesting predictions, you have to test them experimentally. 

I don't think this figure is a scientific spectator. Particularly since he/she helps speed up the research process and indicate how and where to invest money.. 

[Qualia]

I have heard some mathematicians argue strongly that....mathematics is a Universal language.

Aye, but there are notable objections to this assumption.

For example, although mathematical statements such as 2+2=4 could be true everywhere, and hence mathematics is 'universal', the assumption neglects the fact that mathematics, in order to be a universal language, would have to be universally used or in practice. As such, the assumption is inductive and open to the same critique as any other such inductive statement. That is, no universal rule can be established from it.

A similar line of reasoning would suggest that in principle there could be some corner of the universe that may be so different from our own world, that our mathematics would simply not arise there. If this other world is so different, then the math might be different as well, and so long as the suspicion of this possibility remains, the assertion that math is a universal language, is one merely based on faith.

Another line of reasoning would argue that math has certainly proved to be extremely useful in describing the physical characteristics of our planetary system, structure of the atom, and so on. Therefore, giving way to the idea that math is a universal language, suggests that mathematics would be a straightforward option used in describing our physical environment to an alien culture.

The problem, however, is that any symbol be it a word, sentence, picture, squiggly line, or what have you, is in need of interpretation. But such an interpretation would be in need of an interpretation itself, and that interpretation is in need of another. Of course, the reason why we know the meaning of a word, sentence, picture, squiggly line symbol is that we have learned how to interpret it and use it, but on what guarantee do we have that an alien culture would have such a similar understanding and semantics? Sure, we may be able to teach them how to follow our rules and interpretations, but this would suggest that far from being universal, our way of doing math is quite forgein.

Of course, none of these arguments presented demonstrate that mathematics is not a universal language - who would ever want to be so dogmatic? But they do give room to critical inspection to the possibility of universality and the untested assumption that universality is always-already the case. 

[Zakalwe]

Aye, but there are notable objections to this assumption.

For example, although mathematical statements such as 2+2=4 could be true everywhere, and hence mathematics is 'universal', the assumption neglects the fact that mathematics, in order to be a universal language, would have to be universally used or in practice. As such, the assumption is inductive and open to the same critique as any other such inductive statement. That is, no universal rule can be established from it.

A similar line of reasoning would suggest that in principle there could be some corner of the universe that may be so different from our own world, that our mathematics would simply not arise there. If this other world is so different, then the math might be different as well, and so long as the suspicion of this possibility remains, the assertion that math is a universal language, is one merely based on faith.

Only if you everything was based on base-10, which would be a daft assumption, given that there is no reason to suggest an alien species would have ten toes/fingers/tentacles. However, mathematics based on binary would be comprehensible. 1+1 will always equal 10, or, to use your example, 10+10=100. Binary covers a multitude of scenarios- light/no light, electric current/no electric current and so on.

The problem, however, is that any symbol be it a word, sentence, picture, squiggly line, or what have you, is in need of interpretation. But such an interpretation would be in need of an interpretation itself, and that interpretation is in need of another. Of course, the reason why we know the meaning of a word, sentence, picture, squiggly line symbol is that we have learned how to interpret it and use it, but on what guarantee do we have that an alien culture would have such a similar understanding and semantics? Sure, we may be able to teach them how to follow our rules and interpretations, but this would suggest that far from being universal, our way of doing math is quite forgein.

Which is exactly why maths can be thought of to be a Universal language.  When decoding any language or encryption, the easiest way is to find "cribs"- phrases or symbols that are common or can be translated. The Pioneer and Voyager probes carried a plate that carried such a crib, based on elemental hydrogen-the most abundant element in the universe. Both plaques used the spin-flip transition of a hydrogen atom to represent binary. It is this transition which is responsible for the 21-centimeter line (giving a standard distance) at 1,420 MHz (giving a standard time) by clouds of atomic hydrogen in space. Now any space-faring species must, by definition, be capable of advanced engineering and mathematics and could recognise this most common and elemental crib.

Sure, we may be able to teach them how to follow our rules and interpretations, but this would suggest that far from being universal, our way of doing math is quite forgein.

They aren't "our rules". Maths is how we describe reality and as such we are discovering the laws of the Universe.  An electric current will always flow through a conductor is a potential difference exists. In binary, 1+1 always equals 10

As far as we know, the only place in the Universe where "our" mathematics breaks down is at the singularity of a black hole. Then again, our maths isn't sophisticated enough to get us off the planet in any meaningful manner, so it's possible that we are describing reality incorrectly.

[Qualia]

I think the thrust of my critique was overlooked. Formally, the burden of proof is upon one to establish the claim of universality. The argument that math is a universal language is in principle and by definition inductive. Unless demonstrated otherwise, the claim of universality cannot be established without recourse to faith or worse blind dogma. Ironically and in light of a thread on the scientific methods, we may just reply, test your hypothesis and prove it

[Zakalwe]

 Ironically and in light of a thread on the scientific methods, we may just reply, test your hypothesis and prove it .

I am justifiably hoisted by my own petard!

Consider the lesson suitably learned :embarrassed:

[Tiki]

Whilst certainly not a proof, the independent discovery of certain mathematical theorems by different mathematicians with different cultural, political and economic backgrounds throughout history does lends weight to the idea that mathematics is a universal language.

If we were to encounter a three-fingered alien and give him the problem of summing 2+2, an answer of 11 would be further evidence of maths being a universal language.

[Qualia]

I find this thread fascinating. I think much has been raised here which deserves great credit and the posts are brilliant reflections on the power of SGL and the open willingness to debate. In a very real way, I feel we're all on the same side, as such, my communcaition is not one of battle or merely to contradict. It seeks understanding. Although I quote Tiki below, this is also a longer reply to Zakalwe from the short outburst I wrote before work this afternoon.

Whilst certainly not a proof, the independent discovery of certain mathematical theorems by different mathematicians with different cultural, political and economic backgrounds throughout history does lends weight to the idea that mathematics is a universal language.

If we were to encounter a three-fingered alien and give him the problem of summing 2+2, an answer of 11 would be further evidence of maths being a universal language.

I agree. But now we've significantly narrowed the term 'universal'. What was once eternal and absolute throughout the universe has been reduced to an all too human truth; subject to change and consideration.

However, we can counter this claim and argue that the statement "math is a universal language" is just a way of saying that there is no meaningful way we can entertain the notion that there might be a world where math doesn't apply. You may say a 'round-triangle' but as soon as you try to make sense of such a description you run into contradiction.

Likewise, you (Qualia) may claim that there is the possibility of a world in which math doesn't apply but it would be a world we can make no sense of, in any way. Therefore, those who claim the universality of math do not have to demonstrate that the laws of math apply universally, we stipulate that they do, as a cost for thinking intelligibly.

This is a good move but the claim is still an emprical one. With regards to the three-fingered aliens, for example, science/evidence cannot show that something is universally true, only that something is not universally true. The upshot seems to be that even if such a statement about the universality of math is correct, we cannot know this absolutely from the truths we already know about.

[andrew s]

For a contemporary account of some of the issues discussed here in the context of cosmology, I recommend The Dark Matter Problem (A Historical Perspective) by R H Sanders CUP. I got it at astrofest and have found it fascinating. I clearly illustrated the issues of theory and measurement being entangled and much much more. I realize the discussion here has moved on a bit but nonetheless felt this book worth pointing out.

Regards Andrew

[Piero]

I agree with Rob and from my point of view he explained the concept very clearly.

You cannot say a priori that everywhere in the universe our mathematical and physical laws are the same. This is an assumption and should be proved.

Regarding the mathematical logic argument, our mathematics relies on specific syntactic and semantic definitions.. Whether this set is complete is a Nobel price question!

[Piero]

In addition, I think that saying that our mathematics is a universal language implies that has/is the most compact set of tools for describing nature effectively. These tools are deduced by our way of thinking though. Actually, not only our way of thinking, but also our physical view and interpretation of nature. For 2k years we gave the world an Euclidean description, in 2 or 3 dimensions, but this is not necessarily correct.. Just seemed the easiest way to explain the world with our eyes. I think the universality idea is a shortcut way to avoid thinking the limits of our knowledge, a bit like for centuries we thought to be at the centre of the universe. I am not saying that our mathematics is not an universal language. I am just saying that whether this is or not should be proved. And if this problem is proved undecidable, this would still be a great result!

[Piero]

Whilst certainly not a proof, the independent discovery of certain mathematical theorems by different mathematicians with different cultural, political and economic backgrounds throughout history does lends weight to the idea that mathematics is a universal language.If we were to encounter a three-fingered alien and give him the problem of summing 2+2, an answer of 11 would be further evidence of maths being a universals language.

I don't think your implication is sound. Arriving to the same conclusion (theorem) in one ore more ways (proofs) doesn't necessarily imply that that theorem is universal to me. It rather means that more people induced or deduced or composed pieces of already existing theorems and that this new theorem was mature enough to be formulated. What happens though if you change the initial axioms?

Would this theorem be universally correct? And who did define the axioms if not us? What are the bases for them?

I think mathematics is an interesting and powerful game but as but you cannot use mathematics to explain its own nature. Therefore, to me this implies that you cannot use mathematics for explaining its own universality.

Wonder though whether an order of mathematics higher than ours can explain the universality of our mathematics in our world..

[ghostdance]

This is developing into what must be One of The Classic Threads....as a none-too scientific person ( math is a language my brain cannot translate, ever since school, and I find a lot of 'hard science', formulas etc, baffling so a bear of little brain in comparison) I can only say I find the posts and discussion *fascinating* (& am slowly getting to understand some of the more, er, esoteric bits)...

Makes me wonder what have been, apart from the stickies, some other classic SGL threads from before I joined?

[Piero]

I think this is an interesting thread too and there are a lot of unanswered philosophical questions in it! To me it is an example of how philosophy can actually shape future scientific questions.

And the other way around is also true! That's why to me philosophy shouldn't be discarded: it is where a lot of the "why" questions come from!

And it is something that you cannot program a computer to formulate or answer to "why questions".. If it were able to, it would be inherently intelligent to my mind..