The irrationality of "science"

[Woody50]

I've posted this on another board, but I think this is a better place for this argument. Science is irrational. The "scientific method" alone affirms the consequent, which is illogical and irrational.

I've no problem if someone makes a claim from "science" and argues that such a claim is one of many possibilities. That's not what "scientists" do, though.

Science is irrational.

 

[Nouveau]

Science is not irrational. The OP confuses deduction (affirming the consequent) and abductive inference. In the absence of any other argument from the OP, this claim can be dismissed.

 

[inertia]

I've posted this on another board, but I think this is a better place for this argument. Science is irrational. The "scientific method" alone affirms the consequent, which is illogical and irrational.

I've no problem if someone makes a claim from "science" and argues that such a claim is one of many possibilities. That's not what "scientists" do, though.

Science is irrational.

History in scientific philosophy:

Karl Popper is known for his philosophy concerning the problem of induction when progressing from observations to scientific laws. Yes, affirming the consequent is a fallacy, on the other hand, falsification provides positive inference.

Falsification is at the heart of scientific methodology.

General relativity passes the falsifiability test because, in addition to elegantly accounting for previously-observed phenomena like the precession of Mercury’s orbit, it also made predictions about as-yet-unseen effects—how light should bend around the Sun, the way clocks should seem to run slower in a strong gravitational field, and others that have since been borne out by experiment. On the other hand, theories like Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis failed the falsifiability test—in Popper’s mind, at least—because they could be twisted to explain nearly any “data” about the world. As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, skewering one student’s apparently unfalsifiable idea, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”

...................................................................
Quote Reference: NOVA

 

[Woody50]

falsification provides positive inference.

No it does not. It's an attempt to circumvent the fallacy....and fails.

I'm happy to hear your argument that it does, of course. This will be new material here.

Tell us: how does falsification negate a logical fallacy?

Falsification is at the heart of scientific methodology.

Yes. I know.

 

[Nouveau]

Tell us: how does falsification negate a logical fallacy?

Careful readers will note that the OP still hasn't made the slightest effort to show that the scientific method commits any logical fallacy.

 

[Woody50]

Nouveau! I thought you ignored me!

I'm glad to have you back...seriously.

Sure I have! It affirms the consequent...all the time. You know that story of the blind men and the elephant, right?

Science can only give one of an infinite number of explanations about anything. This is irrational.

I don't understand why this upsets you so much. I thought science was dispassionate.

 

[inertia]

No it does not. It's an attempt to circumvent the fallacy....and fails.

...

What?

Why should one attempt to - circumvent - when the logic of modus tollens is a better approach? Certainly, falsification produces more reliable knowledge.

A little error analysis can make a big difference before making conclusions without testing hypotheses.

Tell us: how does falsification negate a logical fallacy?

Negation was not my intended argument. At the heart of my argument is a better approach.

 

[Nouveau]

Careful readers will note that the OP still hasn't made the slightest effort to show that the scientific method commits any logical fallacy.

Careful readers will note that the OP still hasn't supported his claim and still doesn't understand the difference between affirming the consequent and abductive inference. The OP is almost certainly trolling and has no interest in honest discussion.

 

[The Pixie]

I've posted this on another board, but I think this is a better place for this argument. Science is irrational. The "scientific method" alone affirms the consequent, which is illogical and irrational.

I've no problem if someone makes a claim from "science" and argues that such a claim is one of many possibilities. That's not what "scientists" do, though.

Science is irrational.

For something to be accepted as mainstream science it has to do more than affirm the consequent.

I used the example of relativity in your other thread, and it works well here. The orbit of Mercury was known to be anomalous, relativity predicted an anomalous orbit, so it must be right. That would be affirm the consequent.

In fact relativity did not merely predict the orbit would be anomalous, it also predicted what that orbit would be. In doing so, it makes it far more likely the relativity is right - or rather a good model. The chances of a wrong theory predicting an anomalous orbit is pretty high. The probability of a wrong theory predicting the correct anomalous orbit is very low. Therefore there is a fair chance the theory is right.

Even then, it was only when other predictions were confirmed that relativity became mainstream. All these are bold predictions, predictions that are significantly different to what we would otherwise expect. When a number of bold predictions are confirmed we have good reason to suppose the theory is accurate.

 

[Woody50]

All these are bold predictions,

A prediction, bold or otherwise is still a prediction. Irrational.

You used a lot of words to basically say you just don't know...but some assertions are more bold than others. What does that even mean? You either KNOW or you do not.

You don't know. You just assert that some guesses make more sense (IOW, you agree with them more).

 

[Nouveau]

I see the troll is still pretending not to understand basic concepts.

The difference between deductive, inductive and abductive inference really isn't that hard to learn.

His standard schtick is to deny all probabilistic reasoning and pretend that knowledge requires certainty.

 

[Woody50]

The difference between deductive, inductive and abductive inference really isn't that hard to learn.

His standard schtick is to deny all probabilistic reasoning and pretend that knowledge requires certainty.

You're right. It isn't. Why haven't you learned it?

All "probabilistic" reasoning is irrational. Or do you not understand logic?

You just pretend that "knowledge" doesn't require certainty.

So you know nothing.

 

[Nouveau]

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[The Pixie]

A prediction, bold or otherwise is still a prediction. Irrational.

Why is it irrational?

Even then, it was only when other predictions were confirmed that relativity became mainstream. All these are bold predictions, predictions that are significantly different to what we would otherwise expect. When a number of bold predictions are confirmed we have good reason to suppose the theory is accurate.

You used a lot of words to basically say you just don't know...but some assertions are more bold than others. What does that even mean? You either KNOW or you do not.

This is simply not true. I clearly stated what "bold prediction" means, and I did not say that I do not know.

You chose to rip a fragment of a sentence out of a paragraph that explains "bold prediction", and then pretend I said something different. I consider deliberately misrepresenting another person to be dishonest.

If you are reduced to employing such dishonest tactics to continue the discussion, you have already lost it.

You used a lot of words to basically say you just don't know...but some assertions are more bold than others. What does that even mean? You either KNOW or you do not.

A bold prediction is who that disagrees with what we would otherwise expect. To use relativity again, relativity can be used to predict the orbit of Earth, but predicts virtually the same orbit as Newtonian physics. That was not a bold prediction. However, the orbit it predicts for Mercury, so much closer to a large mass, is significantly different to what Newtonian physics predicts. That, then, is a bold prediction.

 

[Whateverman]

You just pretend that "knowledge" doesn't require certainty.

There's no pretense, because it's an obvious fact that knowledge does-not and indeed CAN-not require certainty.

If knowledge required certainty, then you would never know that your wife and children love you. You'd never know what clothes to wear to prepared for inclement weather. You'd never know whether walking across the street in traffic will get you killed. You'd never know that your car will get you to work that day.

And you most certainty would never know anything about science.

Oh wait...

 

[Woody50]

There's no pretense, because it's an obvious fact that knowledge does-not and indeed CAN-not require certainty.

Define "fact."

Knowledge does, indeed require certainty. You are just frustrated by the fact that you know nothing, and have to explain your lack of certainty.

Let me ask you this: what word would you ascribe to the human condition, as you explain it? We say we "know" but we are not certain about anything.

Regardless, thanks for backing off and letting others tell their opinions--because you're not certain about anything. Indeed, perhaps you should just listen to every opinion/suggestion/assertion beside your own. Maybe they're more certain and you can learn something?

If knowledge required certainty, then you would never know that your wife and children love you.

I do know, because I don't use science to tell me what I know. Science supremely faulty and irrational.

You'd never know what clothes to wear to prepared for inclement weather. You'd never know whether walking across the street in traffic will get you killed. You'd never know that your car will get you to work that day.

Ah, yes. Your god is science. I know. The faulty, irrational, illogical science. I don't worship your god.

And you most certainty would never know anything about science.

You assert that we "KNOW" the boiling point of water, dude. You know less about science than logic. And that IS saying something.

 

[Nouveau]

The troll is back to repeating his bogus claims about knowledge and science that were already refuted in his last thread.

 

[Woody50]

The troll is back to repeating his bogus claims about knowledge and science that were already refuted in his last thread.

Lol. Rebutted. Not refuted. You do, of course, know the difference? This goes back to "knowing" stuff, though...

 

[Nouveau]

The troll has never once provided a source supporting his ridiculous assumption that knowledge requires absolute certainty.

Or his claim that science is irrational.

Or his claim that science affirms the consequent.

Or any of his other ridiculous flamebait claims.

 

[The Pixie]

Knowledge does, indeed require certainty. You are just frustrated by the fact that you know nothing, and have to explain your lack of certainty.

I appreciate Wiki is not a great source, but it tends to be easier to read:

It is generally accepted today that most of our beliefs are compatible with their falsity and are therefore fallible, although the status of being certain is still often ascribed to a limited range of beliefs (such as "I exist"). The apparent fallibility of our beliefs has led many contemporary philosophers to deny that knowledge requires certainty.[1] Nothing can be known for perfect certain; always a particle of doubt can remain.​

Certainty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org