3 ms·

Causality, as such, is not directly observable. The whole thing science does is produce and refine methods of inferring things that are not observed from thing

by kirse 13y ago

Causality, as such, is not directly observable. The whole thing science does is produce and refine methods of inferring things that are not observed from things that are. This is awful, awful science. Science works best when the entire process (from cause to outcome) can be subject to empiricism. I think we've reached an impasse here, because clearly we differ on whether or not unobservable events can be reasoned about with any level of confidence. You seem to state that inference and models that produce predictions will lead to a "arbitrarily close to 100%" level of confidence, and that's where I completely, utterly disagree... especially when we're trying to talk "billions of years ago". Even in the recent case of a broken window, only your neighbor who saw the event could have a decent level of confidence in what caused it. Millions of tests, models, and inferences would only produce an educated guess as to what happened, all of which would be obliterated by a neighbor simply explaining what they saw. As I said before, I am strictly empirical when it comes to science and am willing to call my personal claims about unseen events as "faith" when I am trying to establish truth about them.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Science works best when the entire process (from cause to outcome) can be subject to empiricism. Events can be observed. Causation is not an event, its a relationship between events which cannot be observed, only inferred. Science is entirely about developing, testing, and refining rules for inferring things that are not observed from things that are observed. > Even in the recent case of a broken window, only your neighbor who saw the event could have a decent level of confidence in what caused it. I disagree. Its quite possible, in many cases, to observe how it broke, what other objects are in proximity to the broken glass, and other things that were going on in the area and have a "decent confidence" in how it was broken without observing the actual event of breaking. > Millions of tests, models, and inferences would only produce an educated guess as to what happened To the extent that this is true, causality is always an educated guess even when you observe the event directly, and the educated guess, with or without observation of the event, can have any arbitrary degree of certainty. You seem to just be repeating the belief in the myth that causation is directly observable and that science is about reporting observed causation, and not developing predictive rules. That's just plain wrong. Empirical observation -- which never includes causation -- is the input of science, but it is no the whole of the process. If it was, science would never get beyond describing events that occur (without their causes) and observed correlations. That's not what science is.
- kirse 13y ago
  Events can be observed. Causation is not an event, its a relationship between events which cannot be observed, only inferred Hmm, I may be improperly using the word "cause" here because of the connotation of the word causality. I see what you are saying, I probably am using "cause" & "produces" interchangeably. Can I set up an an example for you to translate into how we arrive at knowledge? Let's say we both stumble upon a giant multi-level sandcastle on the beach. For the sake of this thought experiment, assume we never saw the creation of this sandcastle, nor can we observe any other sandcastles like it being caused into existence (i.e. it was there long before we existed, and we'll never observe one being created again) Me, in my irrational Christian ways would use faith to say "well, I've never come across one of these before, but I would posit an intelligent designer caused the existence of that sandcastle". You, with your rational and logical models of scientific inference, would take all sorts of measurements and gather the available present evidence and extrapolate that data deep into the past. Given the benefit of time, you would argue the complex movements of the ocean against the rocks and beach likely formed the sandcastle in a slow process over millions of years. After all, the only present observable evidence we have is the ocean, the waves, the rocks, the sand (and all those intertwined processes), so it's clearly the only way we can arrive at a cause, right?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Given the wishy-washy benefit of time, the complex movements of the ocean against the rocks and beach likely formed the sandcastle in a slow process over millions of years. Why a sandcastle? By using a known designed object as a stand-in for objects whose design is under dispute, you're inadvertently begging the question[0]. Scientists didn't just decide to hate creation one day, making up evolution in response. They looked at everything they saw[1], then over centuries of discovery, found that simple creation didn't agree with the evidence. On a shorter time scale, the same process leads born creationists (like myself) to accept evolution on its merits. Also, when evolutionary biologists refer to processes that occur over vast lengths of time, they aren't using time for its "wishy-washy benefit[s]", they're using time because time is what they observe in the form of sedimentary layers, isotopic decay, and genetic drift. Science is not like Doctor Who, in that "timey wimey" hand waving is discouraged. After all, the only present observable evidence we have is the ocean, the waves, the rocks, the sand (and all those intertwined processes), so it's clearly the only way we can arrive at a cause, right? Can you provide a specific instance where an interventionist/creationist model provides better agreement with the evidence? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [1] By which I mean conducted experiments, made observations, and gathered evidence.

by kirse 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Science works best when the entire process (from cause to outcome) can be subject to empiricism. Events can be observed. Causation is not an event, its a relationship between events which cannot be observed, only inferred. Science is entirely about developing, testing, and refining rules for inferring things that are not observed from things that are observed. > Even in the recent case of a broken window, only your neighbor who saw the event could have a decent level of confidence in what caused it. I disagree. Its quite possible, in many cases, to observe how it broke, what other objects are in proximity to the broken glass, and other things that were going on in the area and have a "decent confidence" in how it was broken without observing the actual event of breaking. > Millions of tests, models, and inferences would only produce an educated guess as to what happened To the extent that this is true, causality is always an educated guess even when you observe the event directly, and the educated guess, with or without observation of the event, can have any arbitrary degree of certainty. You seem to just be repeating the belief in the myth that causation is directly observable and that science is about reporting observed causation, and not developing predictive rules. That's just plain wrong. Empirical observation -- which never includes causation -- is the input of science, but it is no the whole of the process. If it was, science would never get beyond describing events that occur (without their causes) and observed correlations. That's not what science is.

kirse 13y ago
Events can be observed. Causation is not an event, its a relationship between events which cannot be observed, only inferred Hmm, I may be improperly using the word "cause" here because of the connotation of the word causality. I see what you are saying, I probably am using "cause" & "produces" interchangeably. Can I set up an an example for you to translate into how we arrive at knowledge? Let's say we both stumble upon a giant multi-level sandcastle on the beach. For the sake of this thought experiment, assume we never saw the creation of this sandcastle, nor can we observe any other sandcastles like it being caused into existence (i.e. it was there long before we existed, and we'll never observe one being created again) Me, in my irrational Christian ways would use faith to say "well, I've never come across one of these before, but I would posit an intelligent designer caused the existence of that sandcastle". You, with your rational and logical models of scientific inference, would take all sorts of measurements and gather the available present evidence and extrapolate that data deep into the past. Given the benefit of time, you would argue the complex movements of the ocean against the rocks and beach likely formed the sandcastle in a slow process over millions of years. After all, the only present observable evidence we have is the ocean, the waves, the rocks, the sand (and all those intertwined processes), so it's clearly the only way we can arrive at a cause, right?
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Given the wishy-washy benefit of time, the complex movements of the ocean against the rocks and beach likely formed the sandcastle in a slow process over millions of years. Why a sandcastle? By using a known designed object as a stand-in for objects whose design is under dispute, you're inadvertently begging the question[0]. Scientists didn't just decide to hate creation one day, making up evolution in response. They looked at everything they saw[1], then over centuries of discovery, found that simple creation didn't agree with the evidence. On a shorter time scale, the same process leads born creationists (like myself) to accept evolution on its merits. Also, when evolutionary biologists refer to processes that occur over vast lengths of time, they aren't using time for its "wishy-washy benefit[s]", they're using time because time is what they observe in the form of sedimentary layers, isotopic decay, and genetic drift. Science is not like Doctor Who, in that "timey wimey" hand waving is discouraged. After all, the only present observable evidence we have is the ocean, the waves, the rocks, the sand (and all those intertwined processes), so it's clearly the only way we can arrive at a cause, right? Can you provide a specific instance where an interventionist/creationist model provides better agreement with the evidence? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [1] By which I mean conducted experiments, made observations, and gathered evidence.