5 ms·

> "What does putting numbers on things have to do with any of this?" Before we explore the rest of your questions, we need to establish the fundamentals. Scie

> "What does putting numbers on things have to do with any of this?" Before we explore the rest of your questions, we need to establish the fundamentals. Science is built upon testability. If something can't be tested, we can't extend our scientific understanding of it. The scientific method works by first establishing a hypothesis to test, and then conducting experiments to assess whether the hypothesis was accurate. If you can't verify if the hypothesis is accurate or not then the scientific method doesn't work. You can only verify if something is accurate or not if you can accurately measure it. Measuring something relies on being able to quantify it. Do you disagree with any of the above? > "I don't think science can explain this, at least not yet" It's the "at least not yet" that I'm referring to as the misconception. Some things do not lend themselves to measurement, so in some cases it's much more honest to admit we'll probably never be able to accurately measure some things. To give a simple example, let's say I ask you... "On a scale of 1 to 10, how unhappy do you feel today?" Let's also imagine I ask multiple people the same question. What can I infer from this data set? Am I measuring the perception of sadness? What role does the strength of memory play on this? Would I have got a different answer if I asked you 5 minutes later? Is a 7/10 from one person comparable to a 7/10 from another person? Note that even though the data set is nonsense, the decision on which number between 1 to 10 was based on something (or rather a group of different things), it's just not something that can be boiled down to an accurate model. Any attempt to do so will require such high levels of abstraction that the end result is too far divorced from reality. To give a more famous example, Douglas Adams' meaning of life being 42, even if you understood the variables used to arrive at this number, what relation does that number have to reality? In summary, science attempts to describe the order in the chaos, but there are certain aspects of life that do not lend themselves to being reduced in this way. If you accept that, then you can accept that even if science has merit in some fields, it also has its limitations.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Science is built upon testability. If something can't be tested, we can't extend our scientific understanding of it. Yes. > If you can't verify if the hypothesis is accurate or not then the scientific method doesn't work. No. Science never verifies, science only falsifies. If something were to be verified successfully, that would mean that falsification would be impossible. If something is not falsifiable, it is not testable, and therefore not science, therefore science does not verify. > You can only verify if something is accurate or not if you can accurately measure it. What does "accurate(ly)" mean here? > Measuring something relies on being able to quantify it. No, unless you mean that in the very abstract sense that any information can be encoded as numbers. > It's the "at least not yet" that I'm referring to as the misconception. Some things do not lend themselves to measurement, so in some cases it's much more honest to admit we'll probably never be able to accurately measure something. I'll take the "to accurately measure something" to mean "to explain something scientifically", as I don't understand what you mean by "accurately measure something", see above. "at least not yet" means "it's not possible now, possibly it will never be possible, possibly it will be possible at some point", right? So, where does that contradict the "admission" that "we'll probably never be able" to make that a misconception? Aren't you saying essentially the same thing with different words? > Let's also imagine I ask multiple people the same question. What can I infer from this data set? Am I measuring the perception of sadness? With noise, as all measurements are, but yes, what else would you be measuring? > What role does the strength of memory play on this? Would I have got a different answer if I asked you 5 minutes later? All perfectly fine scientific question that one could investigate, no? > Is a 7/10 from one person comparable to a 7/10 from another person? Maybe, maybe not, how is the precision of a measurement relevant to the question of whether it is a measurement? > Note that even though the data set is nonsense, the decision on which number between 1 to 10 was based on something (or rather a group of different things), it's just not something that can be boiled down to a model. Any attempt to do so will require such high levels of abstraction that the end result is too far divorced from reality. Are you saying that you think the answers you would get would be completely random with no connection to people's actual emotional state? Do you think that if you asked this question to a population of people whose loved ones were murdered the night before you ask them, they would be just as likely to answer 1 as they would be to answer 10 or any number in between, and the distribution of answers would be indistinguishable from when you asked a population of people who just found new love and won a million bucks in the lottery? Or in other words: Are you saying that you think the model/concept that we commonly refer to using the label "happiness" in the English language does not map to anything in reality? > To give a more famous example, Douglas Adams' meaning of life being 42, even if you understood the variables used to arrive at this number, what relation does that number have to reality? Erm ... the relation described by the method that is used to arrive at this number? Is that a trick question? > In summary, science attempts to describe the order in the chaos, but there are certain aspects of life that do not lend themselves to being reduced in this way. Such as? Can you justify that position in any way? So far, this seems to be a completely unsupported assertion on your part. > If you accept that, then you can accept that even if science has merit in some fields, it also has its limitations. Which is precisely what I said: It is a very important part of science to say "I don't know", that is exactly the recognition that scientific knowledge has limits.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "No. Science never verifies, science only falsifies. If something were to be verified successfully, that would mean that falsification would be impossible. If something is not falsifiable, it is not testable, and therefore not science, therefore science does not verify." It's the hypothesis that determines whether we're looking for the presence or absence of something, or in other words what the implications of a positive or negative result are. Perhaps you need to understand the roles that models play in science to see it. For example, when the standard model of physics predicted the Higgs boson, the purpose of searching for the Higgs boson was neither to verify or falsify the standard model, but rather to see whether it existed. The outcome either way was helpful in extending scientific knowledge. As it turns out, the Higgs boson was discovered, which is an example of science confirming something, which therefore negates "science only falsifies". > "No, unless you mean that in the very abstract sense that any information can be encoded as numbers." You're missing out on the fact I'm trying to suggest accurate quantification over simple quantification. You can attach a number to anything, that much is true, but the question is, does that number give you any power to predict outcomes? Or in other words, is it a useful number? I gave the example before of a sadness number. You can attach a number to perceived sadness, but does it tell you anything universal about the nature of sadness, or is it purely subjective? Note that subjective implies that it depends on the person in question and all environmental factors that exist at the time, which a single number would not account for. > "I'll take the "to accurately measure something" to mean "to explain something scientifically", as I don't understand what you mean by "accurately measure something", see above. "at least not yet" means "it's not possible now, possibly it will never be possible, possibly it will be possible at some point", right? So, where does that contradict the "admission" that "we'll probably never be able" to make that a misconception? Aren't you saying essentially the same thing with different words?" See above. To give you this same point in the form of a question, if you have a measurement, but it doesn't give you the power to predict anything, is that measurement scientifically useful? > "With noise, as all measurements are, but yes, what else would you be measuring?" > "All perfectly fine scientific question that one could investigate, no?" The point I was trying to make that clearly wasn't clear enough was, you don't have enough control over the variables, nor do you know what the important variables are, as not only are there a vast range to choose from, but the important variables may vary from person to person. If you have no way of determining whether confirmation/denial of your prediction was based on scientific understanding or chance, what have you really understood about how the world works? As I suggested previously, science is an attempt to create order out of chaos. Some chaos is simple enough for us to accurately model and predict, other chaos is simply too complex, too impenetrable, too hard to test in a controlled manner. If you consider that physics is a vast subject, and that this concerns the simplest of all phenomena in life, how much more complex do you think the science that studies, with the same level of detail, the affect of something even more unruly, such as the way society shapes its inhabitants. Sociology already exists, but the approaches that work in physics do not work in sociology, and the knowledge we do gain is fragmented and dependent on the society of the time. Our body of scientific knowledge in such fields will forever be limited because of that. > "Maybe, maybe not, how is the precision of a measurement relevant to the question of whether it is a measurement?" The whole purpose of having measurements in science is to be able to use past knowledge to guide more in-depth questions. If you cannot use a measurement to form future predictions/hypotheses, what value does it have for science? > "Are you saying that you think the answers you would get would be completely random with no connection to people's actual emotional state? Do you think that if you asked this question to a population of people whose loved ones were murdered the night before you ask them, they would be just as likely to answer 1 as they would be to answer 10 or any number in between, and the distribution of answers would be indistinguishable from when you asked a population of people who just found new love and won a million bucks in the lottery? Or in other words: Are you saying that you think the model/concept that we commonly refer to using the label "happiness" in the English language does not map to anything in reality?" The short answer is; any factor not in your control could skew the results, and in this case there are too many factors outside your control. Perception of happiness is just one example of a factor outside your control. As a side note, individuals react to trauma in different ways, and some of those ways are informed by social conditioning. > "Erm ... the relation described by the method that is used to arrive at this number? Is that a trick question?" See points above about the purpose of measurement / scientific models. > "Such as? Can you justify that position in any way? So far, this seems to be a completely unsupported assertion on your part." I gave you an example of quantifying sadness. > "Which is precisely what I said: It is a very important part of science to say "I don't know", that is exactly the recognition that scientific knowledge has limits." Not the same. "I don't know, but I believe we will in the future" is not the same as "I don't know, and I don't believe we ever will know". One statement has faith in the scientific method to conquer all obstacles at its core, the other has skepticism about the ability of the scientific method to overcome all obstacles at its core.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> Science is built upon testability. If something can't be tested, we can't extend our scientific understanding of it. Yes. > If you can't verify if the hypothesis is accurate or not then the scientific method doesn't work. No. Science never verifies, science only falsifies. If something were to be verified successfully, that would mean that falsification would be impossible. If something is not falsifiable, it is not testable, and therefore not science, therefore science does not verify. > You can only verify if something is accurate or not if you can accurately measure it. What does "accurate(ly)" mean here? > Measuring something relies on being able to quantify it. No, unless you mean that in the very abstract sense that any information can be encoded as numbers. > It's the "at least not yet" that I'm referring to as the misconception. Some things do not lend themselves to measurement, so in some cases it's much more honest to admit we'll probably never be able to accurately measure something. I'll take the "to accurately measure something" to mean "to explain something scientifically", as I don't understand what you mean by "accurately measure something", see above. "at least not yet" means "it's not possible now, possibly it will never be possible, possibly it will be possible at some point", right? So, where does that contradict the "admission" that "we'll probably never be able" to make that a misconception? Aren't you saying essentially the same thing with different words? > Let's also imagine I ask multiple people the same question. What can I infer from this data set? Am I measuring the perception of sadness? With noise, as all measurements are, but yes, what else would you be measuring? > What role does the strength of memory play on this? Would I have got a different answer if I asked you 5 minutes later? All perfectly fine scientific question that one could investigate, no? > Is a 7/10 from one person comparable to a 7/10 from another person? Maybe, maybe not, how is the precision of a measurement relevant to the question of whether it is a measurement? > Note that even though the data set is nonsense, the decision on which number between 1 to 10 was based on something (or rather a group of different things), it's just not something that can be boiled down to a model. Any attempt to do so will require such high levels of abstraction that the end result is too far divorced from reality. Are you saying that you think the answers you would get would be completely random with no connection to people's actual emotional state? Do you think that if you asked this question to a population of people whose loved ones were murdered the night before you ask them, they would be just as likely to answer 1 as they would be to answer 10 or any number in between, and the distribution of answers would be indistinguishable from when you asked a population of people who just found new love and won a million bucks in the lottery? Or in other words: Are you saying that you think the model/concept that we commonly refer to using the label "happiness" in the English language does not map to anything in reality? > To give a more famous example, Douglas Adams' meaning of life being 42, even if you understood the variables used to arrive at this number, what relation does that number have to reality? Erm ... the relation described by the method that is used to arrive at this number? Is that a trick question? > In summary, science attempts to describe the order in the chaos, but there are certain aspects of life that do not lend themselves to being reduced in this way. Such as? Can you justify that position in any way? So far, this seems to be a completely unsupported assertion on your part. > If you accept that, then you can accept that even if science has merit in some fields, it also has its limitations. Which is precisely what I said: It is a very important part of science to say "I don't know", that is exactly the recognition that scientific knowledge has limits.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "No. Science never verifies, science only falsifies. If something were to be verified successfully, that would mean that falsification would be impossible. If something is not falsifiable, it is not testable, and therefore not science, therefore science does not verify." It's the hypothesis that determines whether we're looking for the presence or absence of something, or in other words what the implications of a positive or negative result are. Perhaps you need to understand the roles that models play in science to see it. For example, when the standard model of physics predicted the Higgs boson, the purpose of searching for the Higgs boson was neither to verify or falsify the standard model, but rather to see whether it existed. The outcome either way was helpful in extending scientific knowledge. As it turns out, the Higgs boson was discovered, which is an example of science confirming something, which therefore negates "science only falsifies". > "No, unless you mean that in the very abstract sense that any information can be encoded as numbers." You're missing out on the fact I'm trying to suggest accurate quantification over simple quantification. You can attach a number to anything, that much is true, but the question is, does that number give you any power to predict outcomes? Or in other words, is it a useful number? I gave the example before of a sadness number. You can attach a number to perceived sadness, but does it tell you anything universal about the nature of sadness, or is it purely subjective? Note that subjective implies that it depends on the person in question and all environmental factors that exist at the time, which a single number would not account for. > "I'll take the "to accurately measure something" to mean "to explain something scientifically", as I don't understand what you mean by "accurately measure something", see above. "at least not yet" means "it's not possible now, possibly it will never be possible, possibly it will be possible at some point", right? So, where does that contradict the "admission" that "we'll probably never be able" to make that a misconception? Aren't you saying essentially the same thing with different words?" See above. To give you this same point in the form of a question, if you have a measurement, but it doesn't give you the power to predict anything, is that measurement scientifically useful? > "With noise, as all measurements are, but yes, what else would you be measuring?" > "All perfectly fine scientific question that one could investigate, no?" The point I was trying to make that clearly wasn't clear enough was, you don't have enough control over the variables, nor do you know what the important variables are, as not only are there a vast range to choose from, but the important variables may vary from person to person. If you have no way of determining whether confirmation/denial of your prediction was based on scientific understanding or chance, what have you really understood about how the world works? As I suggested previously, science is an attempt to create order out of chaos. Some chaos is simple enough for us to accurately model and predict, other chaos is simply too complex, too impenetrable, too hard to test in a controlled manner. If you consider that physics is a vast subject, and that this concerns the simplest of all phenomena in life, how much more complex do you think the science that studies, with the same level of detail, the affect of something even more unruly, such as the way society shapes its inhabitants. Sociology already exists, but the approaches that work in physics do not work in sociology, and the knowledge we do gain is fragmented and dependent on the society of the time. Our body of scientific knowledge in such fields will forever be limited because of that. > "Maybe, maybe not, how is the precision of a measurement relevant to the question of whether it is a measurement?" The whole purpose of having measurements in science is to be able to use past knowledge to guide more in-depth questions. If you cannot use a measurement to form future predictions/hypotheses, what value does it have for science? > "Are you saying that you think the answers you would get would be completely random with no connection to people's actual emotional state? Do you think that if you asked this question to a population of people whose loved ones were murdered the night before you ask them, they would be just as likely to answer 1 as they would be to answer 10 or any number in between, and the distribution of answers would be indistinguishable from when you asked a population of people who just found new love and won a million bucks in the lottery? Or in other words: Are you saying that you think the model/concept that we commonly refer to using the label "happiness" in the English language does not map to anything in reality?" The short answer is; any factor not in your control could skew the results, and in this case there are too many factors outside your control. Perception of happiness is just one example of a factor outside your control. As a side note, individuals react to trauma in different ways, and some of those ways are informed by social conditioning. > "Erm ... the relation described by the method that is used to arrive at this number? Is that a trick question?" See points above about the purpose of measurement / scientific models. > "Such as? Can you justify that position in any way? So far, this seems to be a completely unsupported assertion on your part." I gave you an example of quantifying sadness. > "Which is precisely what I said: It is a very important part of science to say "I don't know", that is exactly the recognition that scientific knowledge has limits." Not the same. "I don't know, but I believe we will in the future" is not the same as "I don't know, and I don't believe we ever will know". One statement has faith in the scientific method to conquer all obstacles at its core, the other has skepticism about the ability of the scientific method to overcome all obstacles at its core.