6 ms·

> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintende

> Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. The world is noisy, measures are inaccurate, life is not perfect, but we learn to deal with it. Not all science can be math theory. When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection.

lutusp 13y ago
> If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. Feel free to change the topic. Science is very clearly defined, and an absence of falsifiability is fatal. Either: 1. A theory can potentially be falsified by new evidence, or 2. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience." Which part of the above didn't you understand? > When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection. As I said, feel free to change the subject.
- aninhumer 13y ago
  What makes you say the results of these studies are unfalsifiable?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Try to imagine how you would prove false the claim, in a social setting, with multiple factors at work, and no meaningful controls. If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. The fact the colds are really caused by germs is true and interesting, but it doesn't falsify my claim to have been the cause of the recovery. That's why scientific claims requires a basis for falsification. And this is more than a philosophical position, it's written into the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable."
    - aninhumer 13y ago
      >If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. Umm, sure they can? They repeat the experiment (or perform a better one) and don't get the same results. Lack of controls makes for weaker evidence, but it doesn't magically make things unfalsifiable. And so I ask you again: What makes you say these studies are unfalsifiable?
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Umm, sure they can? They repeat the experiment (or perform a better one) and don't get the same results. Lack of controls makes for weaker evidence, but it doesn't magically make things unfalsifiable. Yes, in fact, that's exactly what it does. My dried gourd example should have demonstrated why this is so -- I can always claim a correlation with the gourd and the outcome, and without proper experimental controls, that's irrefutable. My dried gourd example is meant to show the need for experimental controls -- another group that recovers in the same amount of time without benefit of gourd-shaking undermines the claim that the gourd had anything to do with the outcome. But "undermines" doesn't equal "falsified" -- the latter condition requires that we test an explanation, not just an observation. The method of performing more experiments, gathering more data, decreases the p-value of the outcome, but it cannot turn a hypothesis into a theory until we're testing an explanation rather than measuring an effect. As long as we measure effects without trying to explain them, we're doing an expensive kind of accounting, but not science. Science requires that we try to offer and then test an explanation for what's being observed, and toss the explanations that don't pan out. The tl;dr: science requires theories. > And so I ask you again: What makes you say these studies are unfalsifiable? The problem we're having here involves a definition of terms -- what falsifiable means. More here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science
        aninhumer 13y ago
        I thought this argument sounded familiar, and looking at my comment history confirms it. I argued with you about the necessity of an explanation for something to be scientific previously. Clearly you feel strongly about this issue, so I'll make a better attempt to understand your argument this time. Can you clarify for me exactly what you mean by an "explanation"? The linked article starts to talk about a difference between description and explanation, but then just arbitrarily says that Newton's theory of gravity constitutes an explanation. I don't see how Newton's theory is anything more than a very detailed description. Why is the hypothesis "There's a magic force called gravity that behaves according to these laws." any more valid than the hypothesis "Stuff falls because magic." Both provide testable predictions, and can be falsified. Indeed one could simply point to the moon and say "that doesn't fall, theory disproven" just as one could point to the unusual orbits, and disprove Newton. I don't see how that makes the hypothesis itself unscientific.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  No need to be rude - you have come to an invalid conclusion here, and it would be better to try to understand why than yell at others. So, what about this research is not falsifiable? For example, if research finds another location in which lead additives were not banned, but in which crime declined with the same characteristics as the drop being ascribed to the ban on lead in other countries, that's strong evidence that the theory is indeed false. In other words, your point is entirely incorrect.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > you have come to an invalid conclusion here ... It's time to offer evidence, not opinion. My claim (and that of scientific philosophers) is that falsifiability is requires for science. That is not a point that's open to debate, it is an established requirement. It's even written into the law, for example laws that prevent Creationism from being presented as science in public school science classrooms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable." > So, what about this research is not falsifiable? Try to imagine how someone could prove false the claim that a reduction of lead in gasoline caused a reduction in the crime rate, to the exclusion of other factors, in a social setting, with no meaningful controls in place. > In other words, your point is entirely incorrect. You need to make an argument before coming to a conclusion. At least, that's the rule in a scientific debate.
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      Try to imagine how someone could prove false the claim that a reduction of lead in gasoline caused a reduction in the crime rate, to the exclusion of other factors, in a social setting, with no meaningful controls in place. I literally gave you an example of this already, and you've ignored it. I can only assume you're responding in bad faith.

lutusp 13y ago

> If we couldn't scientifically deal with this scenario, we'd hardly do any science. Feel free to change the topic. Science is very clearly defined, and an absence of falsifiability is fatal. Either: 1. A theory can potentially be falsified by new evidence, or 2. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience." Which part of the above didn't you understand? > When it touches the real world, you have to deal with imperfection. As I said, feel free to change the subject.

aninhumer 13y ago
What makes you say the results of these studies are unfalsifiable?
- lutusp 13y ago
  Try to imagine how you would prove false the claim, in a social setting, with multiple factors at work, and no meaningful controls. If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. The fact the colds are really caused by germs is true and interesting, but it doesn't falsify my claim to have been the cause of the recovery. That's why scientific claims requires a basis for falsification. And this is more than a philosophical position, it's written into the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable."
  - aninhumer 13y ago
    >If I shake a dried gourd over a cold sufferer and he gets better, I can claim to have been the cause of the recovery. And guess what? No one can prove that claim false. Umm, sure they can? They repeat the experiment (or perform a better one) and don't get the same results. Lack of controls makes for weaker evidence, but it doesn't magically make things unfalsifiable. And so I ask you again: What makes you say these studies are unfalsifiable?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Umm, sure they can? They repeat the experiment (or perform a better one) and don't get the same results. Lack of controls makes for weaker evidence, but it doesn't magically make things unfalsifiable. Yes, in fact, that's exactly what it does. My dried gourd example should have demonstrated why this is so -- I can always claim a correlation with the gourd and the outcome, and without proper experimental controls, that's irrefutable. My dried gourd example is meant to show the need for experimental controls -- another group that recovers in the same amount of time without benefit of gourd-shaking undermines the claim that the gourd had anything to do with the outcome. But "undermines" doesn't equal "falsified" -- the latter condition requires that we test an explanation, not just an observation. The method of performing more experiments, gathering more data, decreases the p-value of the outcome, but it cannot turn a hypothesis into a theory until we're testing an explanation rather than measuring an effect. As long as we measure effects without trying to explain them, we're doing an expensive kind of accounting, but not science. Science requires that we try to offer and then test an explanation for what's being observed, and toss the explanations that don't pan out. The tl;dr: science requires theories. > And so I ask you again: What makes you say these studies are unfalsifiable? The problem we're having here involves a definition of terms -- what falsifiable means. More here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science
      - aninhumer 13y ago
        I thought this argument sounded familiar, and looking at my comment history confirms it. I argued with you about the necessity of an explanation for something to be scientific previously. Clearly you feel strongly about this issue, so I'll make a better attempt to understand your argument this time. Can you clarify for me exactly what you mean by an "explanation"? The linked article starts to talk about a difference between description and explanation, but then just arbitrarily says that Newton's theory of gravity constitutes an explanation. I don't see how Newton's theory is anything more than a very detailed description. Why is the hypothesis "There's a magic force called gravity that behaves according to these laws." any more valid than the hypothesis "Stuff falls because magic." Both provide testable predictions, and can be falsified. Indeed one could simply point to the moon and say "that doesn't fall, theory disproven" just as one could point to the unusual orbits, and disprove Newton. I don't see how that makes the hypothesis itself unscientific.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
No need to be rude - you have come to an invalid conclusion here, and it would be better to try to understand why than yell at others. So, what about this research is not falsifiable? For example, if research finds another location in which lead additives were not banned, but in which crime declined with the same characteristics as the drop being ascribed to the ban on lead in other countries, that's strong evidence that the theory is indeed false. In other words, your point is entirely incorrect.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > you have come to an invalid conclusion here ... It's time to offer evidence, not opinion. My claim (and that of scientific philosophers) is that falsifiability is requires for science. That is not a point that's open to debate, it is an established requirement. It's even written into the law, for example laws that prevent Creationism from being presented as science in public school science classrooms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas Quote: "The judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being: * It is guided by natural law; * It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; * It is testable against the empirical world; * Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and * It is falsifiable." > So, what about this research is not falsifiable? Try to imagine how someone could prove false the claim that a reduction of lead in gasoline caused a reduction in the crime rate, to the exclusion of other factors, in a social setting, with no meaningful controls in place. > In other words, your point is entirely incorrect. You need to make an argument before coming to a conclusion. At least, that's the rule in a scientific debate.
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    Try to imagine how someone could prove false the claim that a reduction of lead in gasoline caused a reduction in the crime rate, to the exclusion of other factors, in a social setting, with no meaningful controls in place. I literally gave you an example of this already, and you've ignored it. I can only assume you're responding in bad faith.