3 ms·

Science is ultimately rooted in logic, and I'm not sure why so many people forget this. We seem to pretend that we can evaluate every possible claim in a comple

by feoren 2y ago

Science is ultimately rooted in logic, and I'm not sure why so many people forget this. We seem to pretend that we can evaluate every possible claim in a complete vacuum, and that it's somehow pure to ignore any sort of logic or prior knowledge when we do so. But this has never been "how science works", nor how humans work. Science operates on top of the logic and knowledge that we already have about the universe. So if I claim that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around our solar system, and it is 1000x larger than our sun, emitting a divine brightness so intense that it would burn the eyes of all who gaze upon it, you're 100% justified to say "no there isn't. We would have seen it." "Aha!" I say, "but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Therefore you can't say anything at all about whether there's a supermassive superluminal Giant Spaghetti Monster!". That is absolute nonsense. > you cannot say its existence is more likely based on lack of evidence for it If its existence would imply evidence, then you absolutely can judge its likelihood based on whether that evidence exists or not. And you can also judge its likelihood based on a reasonable extrapolation from prior knowledge, by the way. Yes, it is more likely that there is a 10 kg rock orbiting Neptune than a 10^20 kg Spaghetti Monster, even though we have not directly observed either one. We understand the mechanisms by which a small rock comes to orbit a planet. We see that kind of thing all the time. It may be difficult to formalize some of these priors, but that's a failure of our formalisms, not a mandate that we must not use that knowledge when doing science.

JohnMakin 2y ago
> "Aha!" I say, "but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Therefore you can't say anything at all about whether there's a supermassive superluminal Giant Spaghetti Monster!". That is absolute nonsense. Note that the comment you are replying to said nor implied anything of the sort.
- feoren 2y ago
  >> Note that the comment you are replying to said nor implied anything of the sort. That's literally the exact claim being made: > We have an astounding lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space, it doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there's a lack of evidence A lack of evidence indicates nothing but a lack of evidence. No! That's not true! It's a widely held misconception and it's worth debunking.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Ok, now read that in the context of the entire post.
    - feoren 2y ago
      Your entire post was barely longer than that ... > That isn't how science works. "Science" is a lot of human activities mushed together and there's not "one true way" that it works, except that it is universally done by humans (so far), with all the good and bad that come with that. > We have an astounding lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space True. > it doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there's a lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space False. > It may not indicate with absolute certainty whether there is or isn't one Nobody has ever cared about "absolute certainty" and science never seriously claims this. > you cannot say its existence is more likely based on lack of evidence for it Yes you can! (I charitably assume you meant less likely here, otherwise the entire comment makes no sense, is arguing against a trivial falsehood nobody has ever claimed (certainly not OP), and you had no reason to post it) > that is superstition No, it's Bayesian logic; it's the only way humans have ever acquired knowledge. There, I covered your entire post.

by feoren 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

> "Aha!" I say, "but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Therefore you can't say anything at all about whether there's a supermassive superluminal Giant Spaghetti Monster!". That is absolute nonsense. Note that the comment you are replying to said nor implied anything of the sort.

feoren 2y ago
>> Note that the comment you are replying to said nor implied anything of the sort. That's literally the exact claim being made: > We have an astounding lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space, it doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there's a lack of evidence A lack of evidence indicates nothing but a lack of evidence. No! That's not true! It's a widely held misconception and it's worth debunking.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Ok, now read that in the context of the entire post.
  - feoren 2y ago
    Your entire post was barely longer than that ... > That isn't how science works. "Science" is a lot of human activities mushed together and there's not "one true way" that it works, except that it is universally done by humans (so far), with all the good and bad that come with that. > We have an astounding lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space True. > it doesn't indicate anything but the fact that there's a lack of evidence that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around the deepest reaches of space False. > It may not indicate with absolute certainty whether there is or isn't one Nobody has ever cared about "absolute certainty" and science never seriously claims this. > you cannot say its existence is more likely based on lack of evidence for it Yes you can! (I charitably assume you meant less likely here, otherwise the entire comment makes no sense, is arguing against a trivial falsehood nobody has ever claimed (certainly not OP), and you had no reason to post it) > that is superstition No, it's Bayesian logic; it's the only way humans have ever acquired knowledge. There, I covered your entire post.