Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
instead of derailing another thread, i thought i’d post this in a new thread.
i am amazed at some of the things that get posted in here without evidence, with the posters making no attempt to justify their position when prompted for clarification. i think this is a sad indictment of the level of education in most countries. even if this is a forum for druggies, i seriously think we can do better.
so, here are my notes about how i think science is done and should be discussed, i think they reflect the general consensus, and i am a research scientist so i think i am qualified to make that statement. but, an important part of science is to admit you’re wrong in the light of new evidence or strong arguments.
the burden of proof, in both science and philosophy, is on the person making the outlandish claim. hence, if you make a claim that flies in the face of scientific consensus (and revolutionary ideas WILL do this), you need to back it up with either a mathematical model, or experimental evidence, and ideally both. in philosophy you need to make a precise and well reasoned argument.
‘i think’ or anecdotal evidence is not considered evidence in either philosophy or science. even evidence for a theory, like all swans being white, that appears statistically powerful, like every swan you’ve ever seen being white, may need revising in light of new observations, i.e. a black swan.
the hallmark of a good scientific theory is explanatory and predictive power. so if, for example, you suggest that gravity doesn’t exist, you need to at the very least replicate the predictions that the theory of gravity makes. ideally, your theory should explain something that the theory of gravity cannot explain. philosophical theories should also have explanatory power.
it is important to use very precise language, in fact most of the time, fundamental sciences eschew language due to its inherent imprecision, and use maths. in philosophy, which does use maths in some areas, but mostly natural language, there are endless debates about what terms mean, because until both sides understand what the other means, there is no way to build a theory.
if your theory flies in the face of the consensus, which can be worked out with a simple Google search, then that's a sign that the burden of proof falls to you. in a forum that doesn't mean doing loads of experiments, obviously, but some argument about how your theory replicates accepted findings would show that it is at least coherent.
i’m quite interested to know why these basic points are being ignored in discussions in this forum, as making an outlandish claim without presenting evidence and then not defending it when someone raises a counterargument doesn’t exactly prompt illuminating discussion. if posters aren’t aware of them, i hope this post will be helpful. if they disagree, then i’d like to know why.
i am amazed at some of the things that get posted in here without evidence, with the posters making no attempt to justify their position when prompted for clarification. i think this is a sad indictment of the level of education in most countries. even if this is a forum for druggies, i seriously think we can do better.
so, here are my notes about how i think science is done and should be discussed, i think they reflect the general consensus, and i am a research scientist so i think i am qualified to make that statement. but, an important part of science is to admit you’re wrong in the light of new evidence or strong arguments.
the burden of proof, in both science and philosophy, is on the person making the outlandish claim. hence, if you make a claim that flies in the face of scientific consensus (and revolutionary ideas WILL do this), you need to back it up with either a mathematical model, or experimental evidence, and ideally both. in philosophy you need to make a precise and well reasoned argument.
‘i think’ or anecdotal evidence is not considered evidence in either philosophy or science. even evidence for a theory, like all swans being white, that appears statistically powerful, like every swan you’ve ever seen being white, may need revising in light of new observations, i.e. a black swan.
the hallmark of a good scientific theory is explanatory and predictive power. so if, for example, you suggest that gravity doesn’t exist, you need to at the very least replicate the predictions that the theory of gravity makes. ideally, your theory should explain something that the theory of gravity cannot explain. philosophical theories should also have explanatory power.
it is important to use very precise language, in fact most of the time, fundamental sciences eschew language due to its inherent imprecision, and use maths. in philosophy, which does use maths in some areas, but mostly natural language, there are endless debates about what terms mean, because until both sides understand what the other means, there is no way to build a theory.
if your theory flies in the face of the consensus, which can be worked out with a simple Google search, then that's a sign that the burden of proof falls to you. in a forum that doesn't mean doing loads of experiments, obviously, but some argument about how your theory replicates accepted findings would show that it is at least coherent.
i’m quite interested to know why these basic points are being ignored in discussions in this forum, as making an outlandish claim without presenting evidence and then not defending it when someone raises a counterargument doesn’t exactly prompt illuminating discussion. if posters aren’t aware of them, i hope this post will be helpful. if they disagree, then i’d like to know why.
Last edited by a moderator:
