Standard Definitions for Science Threads

Vanity ^ | 31 January 2006 | PatrickHenry and Coyoteman

[RightWhale]

Seems fair.

[ovrtaxt]

Exactly. The original post was written to try to provide common ground for discussions of science and philosophy. There are too many intangibles in any philosophical discussion, and the definitions don't hold water in a philosophical context, as I've demonstrated.

Applying empiricism and the scientific method of logical deduction to philosophy is futile. In my humble opinion, the meeting of these two very different disciplines is extremely limited. There's simply not much in common. If I'm wrong, please provide an example or two, I'd really like to explore that idea further.

It's like a surgeon with a patient on the table looking for the conscience. The two realities don't intersect in any meaningful way.

If you really think about it, this is the crux of what makes us more than just another organism. But maybe I'm just getting too philosophical.

[ovrtaxt]

Pretty quiet now. I wonder if we've committed a humorless 'hijack to Freeper Island?'

[Creationist]

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals

the-o-ry = 1. a speculative orig., a mental viewing; contemplation 2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done 3. a systematic statement of principles involved [ the theory of equations in mathematics] 4. a formulation of apparent relationships of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. 5. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice pure, as opposed to applied, science etc. 6. popularly, a mere conjecture, or guess.
Number 4, apparent also means = appearing ( but not necessarily ) real or true. Number 5. evolution has no visible proof so it does work in the principle area. A theory is not always well substantiated, as with the theory of evolution.

These are Coyoteman's definitions

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

dog-ma = an opinion that which one believes, in LL. (Ec.), a decree, order < Gr. dogma, opinion, judgment < dokein, to seem: see DOCTOR 1. a doctrine: tenet; belief 2. doctrines, tenets, or beliefs collectively 3. a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion 4. Theol. a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed.
doctrine 1. something taught; teachings 2. something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc.; tenet or tenets; belief ; dogma 3. rule, theory, or principle of law 4. an official statement of a nation's policy, esp. toward other nations.
SYN.-doctrine refers to a theory based on carefully worked out principles and taught or advocated by its adherents [ scientific or social doctrines] dogma refers to a belief or doctrine that is handed down by authority as true and indisputable, and often connotes arbitrariness, arrogance, etc. tenet emphasizes the maintenance or defense, rather that the teaching, of a theory or principle.

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

hy-poth-e-sis = groundwork, foundation, supposition < hypotithenai, to place under < hypo-, under + lithenai to place: an unproved theory, proposition, supposition etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or ( working hypothesis ) to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etc -- SYN. see theory.

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Faith: Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

faith = 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence 2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs 4. anything believed 5. complete trust, confidence or reliance 6. allegiance to some person or thing; (evolution) FR-evolutionist are dogmatic about the evolutionary theories. The evolutionary hypothesis is the basis for their faith in speculative assumptions of misinterpretation of observations. Their belief is based on facts and data which has been falsified. Time the talisman of evolution is the only way to make the model work.

My hypothesis is that I guess that the theory is based on speculation and assumption through observation with a presumptive opinion which gives an impression of reason, like it had any logical proof. It may be knowledge to understand assumptions even though they are speculative. I am sure your confidence and faith in your belief of the theory is all the reason you feel dogmatic about it.

So I will use the real meaning of the words when discussing this polemic of creation vs evolution. I will not be malign as some FR-evolutionist like to be in their ortund way during their onslaught of flamming. I know that creation is veritable it does not perpetrate tripe to enhance its malleable theory. Spurious an evanescent it is.

FR-evolutionist are Dogmatic in their opinions on the belief by faith their religion. It has been dilligently scrutinized by erudite men and proved spurious and desultory.

[RunningWolf]

Bump to you Creationist. I am very fatigued here after a long day at work.

I did not read your whole post there, but I think I understand what you are saying on several levels.

I need to address a thing here. I do not know how old the world is or the universe either. In a nutshell, I see it as all a conscious expression of his being (not in the atheist mocking illustrations of angels pushing electrons around).

I need to get down in writing where I come from on these topics (because I spend a lot of time here) sometime soon rather than always having a reactionary response.

I think Coyote is sincere, has integrity as he comes to the debates, and Ill give PH the same due (perhaps undeserved).

But what I will respond to here is the PH thread.

She (I think) titles her thread as Standard Definitions for Science Threads. And then in the first paragraph the first two sentences she contradicts herself, and reveals both her bias and the need to control the playing field with science-literate freepers, and science threads for she often 'pings the list' to questionable scientific threads. Then too the response of her 'ping list' is also very questionably scientific.

And then to the 3rd paragraph. The problem with that is they always want to answer the larger unknowns and in the 'science class' and dis-include all others from the 'science class' /sarc>

Hang in there

Wolf

[Old_Mil]

Webster's then goes on to explain that Definition #1 is the definition used in scientific literature.

You might want to read the original post again.

[spunkets]

"Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals"

The definitions of the words used in scientific endeavors have not changed, nor can they change. It's not logical to allow it. In general, a dictionary is not a source for precise scientific definitions. The 3rd draft's definitions of scientific word's are good.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate is preferable to Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary. Even so, it fails to give an accurate scientific definition of the term theory, as your's does. Also, the meanings of words in real dictionaries do not change, including those in Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary.

"SYN.-doctrine refers to a theory based on carefully worked out principles and taught or advocated by its adherents [ scientific or social doctrines]"

Scientific theory is not doctrine. The words are not interchangeable and are not synonymous.

"So I will use the real meaning of the words when discussing this polemic of creation vs evolution."

Naturally! Failing to adhere to the truth of the matter is an inherent requirement, when the objective is to obfuscate to promote falsehoods. ie.
"FR-evolutionist are Dogmatic in their opinions on the belief by faith their religion. It has been dilligently scrutinized by erudite men and proved spurious and desultory."

[PatrickHenry]

DRAFT FOUR:

The only changes since the last draft are two additional items at the end. The thread seems dead, so this may be the final draft, and it's only a slight improvement (if that) over what we started with.

These are still mostly Coyoteman's definitions, again in slightly different order (not yet satisfactory), with my contributions and those of others indented and identified by contributor:

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

By balrog666 (post 8): Off the top of my head, I would say that all scientists speculate to some degree and many discuss, and some even publish, such thoughts (particularly to get some quick and easy feedback). However, such speculations are not indicative of beliefs held, not intended to indicate a direction for future research, but to simply to explore an idea, no matter how off-the-wall it may be, and see if any fruitful insights are realized. OTOH, some of it is intended to be read with tongue firmly in cheek.

By furball4paws in post #15: A scientific speculation is much different than any old speculation. When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhate unrelated things that are known or appear to be unlikely. This becomes a very informed guess. The better the scientist and the greater his experience, the better chance his speculations will prove to be true.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

By spunkets (post #24):
I'd also suggest that this be changed to: Model: a simplified framework representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process . The reason is that all models are representations of an object, or process. "Framework" doesn't fit.

You might also want to add the correspondance principle. The Correspondance Principle says, "Any new theory must contain the old theory as a limiting case." The reason for the incluison is that some folks think that theories can be replaced and the old one junked. That's never true. The old theory must always appear as a limiting case.

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

By spunkets (post #23):
The word belief is generally used with some corresponding Bayesian probability of being true. That depends on the priors(cognitive content) of that individual's cognitive system and whether, or not that cognition is rational, or irrational. The distinguishing feature is rationality, or the absence of it, in the belief system.

Knowledge in a similar way depends on the belief system. One can have knowledge of bagvita's belief system, of which bagvita's beliefs were his knowledge. Both the words belief and knowledge require qualifiers. In general though, the word knowledge implies that one actually knows.

By PH:
Strictly speaking, what one "believes" on faith and what one "knows" are different things.

Belief: One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother.

Faith: Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.

Knowledge: The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence.

Logical Proof: There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, knowledge acquired from sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith, and that term is inapplicable to such knowledge.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because -- at least in principle -- a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proven) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. [By PH: This is similar to what I said, above.]

By <1/1,000,000th% (post #4): The belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." [That is Webster's definition #1, as pointed out by Quark2005 in post #9.] Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

By PH
Scientific theory: In between mother (knowledge from sensory evidence) and the Pythagorean theorem (knowledge from logical proof) are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are currently successful scientific theories -- testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence). Here too, there is no need for faith, and that term does not apply in the context of scientific theories.

Confidence: When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. The word "faith" is inapplicable in this context.

It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. Purely theological matters that are believed on faith are not capable of being tested, and thus theological doctrines are not scientific.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion:

theistic: "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship."

Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [Observation by PH: should be mentioned, perhaps, that this is subjective.]

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

What follows are the rest of PH's offerings, and some others, not yet integrated into the above:

Reason: "Reason -- the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses -- is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival." -- Ayn Rand

Distinctions between reason and faith: It is necessary to distinguish between an axiom (which is a logical necessity) and an article of dogma (an arbitrary assumption), between objective fact and subjective experience, and between hypothesis (a proposed, testable explanation of an observed phenomenon) and conjecture (a guess based on virtually no data). Understanding these fundamental concepts allows us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based doctrine. Reason and faith are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises, with different goals. When properly understood, they are not in conflict.

Occam's Razor. [Suggested by Virginia-American (post #30).

Karl Popper's Falsification. [Suggested by RA's post #36. Possibly: ] A theory can never be proved right by agreement with observation, but it can be proved wrong by disagreement with observation. Because of this asymmetry, science makes progress uniquely by proving that good ideas are wrong so that they can be replaced by even better ideas. ... Almost without exception, in order to extract a falsifiable prediction from a theory, it is necessary to make additional assumptions beyond the theory itself. Then, when the prediction turns out to be false, it may well be one of the other assumptions, rather than the theory itself, that is false. To take a simple example, early in the twentieth century it was found that the orbits of the outermost planets did not quite obey the predictions of Newton’s laws of gravity and mechanics. Rather than take this to be a falsification of Newton’s laws, astronomers concluded the orbits were being perturbed by an additional unseen body out there. They were right. That is precisely how the planet Pluto was discovered.

Empiricism. Definition of empiricism could definitely help. (adam_az post #56)

Scientific Method (adam_az post #56) [PH says: this would be a long item, and there are already links to this in the List-O-Links]

[Quark2005]

Compliment appreciated!

[Alamo-Girl]

Although not invited to your definition project, I'd like to offer the following link on conjecture which has a more precise meaning for the term in mathematics (as compared to science).

[PatrickHenry]

A most interesting contribution. Thanks, A-Girl! As for your missing invitation, it wasn't deliberate. I only pinged my small, hard-core science list for this one. But if I had given it any thought at all, I certainly would have included you.

Alas, the thread isn't accomplishing what I had hoped for, but I guess it's still a worthwhile reference.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! I'm all for definition projects - even if you don't end up with a set of solid definitions at least the contributors have been thinking about them. That should make it easier to "negotiate" for a meaning when the issue pops up on-thread.

[Aracelis]

Excellent resource as always, PH. Thanks for the ping, RA!

[restornu]

I wish you well with this thread..

I hope it continues to linger for a long time..

I checked in today and see SuperBowl has recess this I had to hunt for you!

Be nice to see what you Evos really think with out all of the commotion...

Some day maybe the other side can have a fervent yet affable dialogue!

My best!

[PatrickHenry]

Some day maybe the other side can have a fervent yet affable dialogue!

That would be splendid, but it's up to them.

[restornu]

CLICK

[grey_whiskers]

Late as usual...

Spunkets wrote:You might also want to add the correspondance principle. The Correspondance Principle says, "Any new theory must contain the old theory as a limiting case."

I would change this to "The Correspondance Principle says, "Any new theory must contain the old theory as a limiting case in situations to which both theories are applicable."

Quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics in the limit of large number of particles; special relativity reduces to Newtonian physics as v << c. But the new theory usually addresses (at first) specifically those cases in which the old theory fails.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

the belief in something for which there is no material evidence sufficient material evidence for consensus or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation.

you might also want to work in the concept of trust i.e. argument from authority is not logically valid but this does not mean that all assertions or beliefs based upon trust MUST be untrue. It just means that without resort to Occam's razor, they are more likely to lead to factual errors.

"Null hypothesis" will minimize false positives but makes no guarantees about false negatives...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Bookmarked your article.

Now further behind on my reading.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

After all, correlation (spiritual experience and sobriety) is not causation.

It may be evidence of causation. "Necessary but not sufficient" and all that.

Cheers!