Ken, how exactly are Wikipedia's definitions (I see that they give Newton as a source for their definition of 'scientific method') incompatible with any of what I've been saying?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

They are focused on objectivity as connection with something outside the mind of the scientist, i.e., empirical data. Thus they explicitly separate the experimenter from the experiment, imagining that you could "swap out" any experimenter for any other, and have the same experiment. That is the crux of "objectivity". Consensus is something that eventually does emerge in science, just as in many other pursuits, but it is not part of the meaning of what distinguishes science from other, less objective, ways of knowing.

At the heart of the issue is how is science different from pure mathematics. We agree that there is considerable overlap, as science uses the tools of mathematics to the degree that someone has to fashion the hammers for the carpenter. But the scientist has a different means of establishing truth than does a mathematician. A mathematican needs only to establish "provability" to be finding truth in mathematics-- it's up to them if it is intended to model truth in objective reality (a la Hardy). The scientist, on the other hand, has only objective reality to tell them what is true, he/she chooses axioms to get that agreement, but the axioms never decide the reality-- experiments do that. All that is included in parts of that Wiki definition.

__________________
If we understood everything going on in the head of a pin... we still wouldn't know not to step on the pointy end.

People think the problem with models is that they are limited by our minds, but the greater problem is that our minds are limited by our models.

I find these discussions on objectivity quite informative, and whilst I am still taking on board points raised by both you and Disinfo Agent I would like to clarify for myself your important view on the separation of the observer and the observed.

I think what you are saying is that the ultimate reality of the world and our place in it is an inseparable whole. What science does is to introduce the notion of separating the observer from the observed in order to arrive at objective conclusions. But this separation should not be thought of as a real separation of observer and observed, it does not expose that part of nature which may be imagined as existing independently of our involvement, it is rather a means of providing a consistent repeatable map of nature that works for anyone who may choose to use that map. But that map, in the overall scheme of things has our fingerprints all over it (to use one of your phrases). It still seems to me that at the quantum level, our finger prints become much more pronounced - the spin of a particle clearly depends on how we set up the detector, but I suppose you could say that in the classical world the attributes of a bullet having a trajectory are fundamentally linked to our collective perceptions of such concepts as time and space. But I take your point that fundamentally, at the quantum and classical level, in order to do science, we have to stand back and apply an objective measurement methodology and accept that that is the best we can ever do regardless of how much we are entwined with the experiment at a very fundamental level.

If I have got this right, then it goes some way to clarifying for me this whole business of objectivity and observations. We cannot separate the observer from the observed in a real sense, every experiment has our finger prints over it, but, importantly, we can make the process objective - and this process is science. But put like this, it becomes clear that science is not in the business of discovering nature as she really is, it is in the business of discovering in an objective way nature and us as an entwined entity.

I'm still pondering over objectivity and mathematics, nothing I have said adds to that discussion, but I think I am a little clearer about what objectivity means within the context of representing the physical world.

Very nice post Len. Great discussion Ken and Disinfo Agent. There are some fine lines that are too important to ignore, many you two have addressed.

Nice. The problem seems to come when this objective methodology is conveniently ignorned, such as when devoloping some advanced theory (e.g Parallel Universes).

Ken is correct regarding Galileo. Galileo's work on gravity was based on objective experiments. His counterparts were not enthusiastic about it, however. When a colleague professor dropped balls of different weights and found a slight discrepancy in their impact time, they were quick to criticize Galileo. He responed by pointing out that their common consensus view that came from Aristotle - a subjective idea of the mind - was off by a far, far greater amount than his. [Aristotle claimed that objects fall at a rate proportional to their weight.]

I am curious about how a scientific fact is defined. Is this one area a consensus helps?

Moti Ben-Ari, in his book Just A Theory - Exploring the Nature of Science, offers this...

A scientific observation becomes a fact when there is no longer any reason to doubt it. Thus, the report of the observation and its acceptance by the scientific community are part of what makes the observation a fact. The acceptance comes from the analysis of the report of the experimental or observational conditions; confirmation by independent observers, often using different techniques, is frequently carried out.

Since the consensus is based on the scientific method, then it makes sense. Though, of course, "fact" should not be considered an absolute.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Yes, and that is something I do expect there is consensus on.
Well said.
I would indeed say that, as I see it all as a difference in degree of familiarity, moreso than in degree of objectivity. I admit that our instruments have a greater impact on a quantum system, but we can take that into account-- either way we decided what experiment to set up before we "removed ourselves" from the apparatus.
Right, that's the crux of it. We participate in how the study gets done, even if we do not participate in the phenomena we are studying in a more direct way. That's more or less the difference between measuring a trajectory and writing a poem about it.
Right, I think of it as a "projection" of nature.
See where it takes you. These are all just ideas, of course.

__________________
If we understood everything going on in the head of a pin... we still wouldn't know not to step on the pointy end.

People think the problem with models is that they are limited by our minds, but the greater problem is that our minds are limited by our models.

Yes I think you've hit the nail on the head. The scientific method uses consensus like a tool, to help it figure out what shall be called a fact, or a test, or a useful theory. That's because consensus is how we convert to something idealized, like the scientific method, into something practical, like the body of knowledge we will act as though is true. But the latter does not distinguish science from other human endeavors, they all use that step (at least in pockets if not globally), so it isn't what makes it "objective". Most people who think a certain way don't care if others think differently, and that is certainly true about scientists in dealing with, say, creationists.

__________________
If we understood everything going on in the head of a pin... we still wouldn't know not to step on the pointy end.

People think the problem with models is that they are limited by our minds, but the greater problem is that our minds are limited by our models.

As usual, Ken, there are some points where I think you've misunderstood me, and some where we simply disagree, but I also have a couple of questions. I think I'll start with the latter.

First question: Would you then say that psychology is not a science? After all, in psychology the subject and the object coincide.

My question about Galileo seems to have been misunderstood. It was very specific. Ken's claim is that objectivity consists of separating out the subject from the object as best as possible. My question was simply: did Galileo ever say that? Did he even use the words 'subject' and 'object' with this meaning? That would surprise me greatly.

It's funny that you asked that. I've been thinking of that question lately, because of some recent discussions of ID. You know, like when we insist that "evolution is a fact and theory" (and in a recent debate Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss even went further: they stated that evolution is a fact, period).

I guess I must come off as annoyingly philosophical to many posters here, but oddly enough there are some things where it is I who am occasionally annoyed by the scholasticism of ([bow]true[/bow]) scientists. For example, the insistence on the distinction between a "law" and a "theory" that physicists love so much, or the claim (with respect to evolution and other hot button pieces of science) that the public "is just ignorant about the meaning of theory" -- when the popular meaning of the word is actually as valid as the scientific one (just open any dictionary), and probably more ancient -- these are things which often come off as pedantic, petty, and beside the point to me.

But, this long preamble aside, I have come to agree with Dawkins and Krauss. Yes, we can say that evolution is a fact. The way that I can understand this is by regarding "fact" and "hypothesis" (or replace with "law", "theory", etc.) as methodological, rather than absolute terms. In science, it's often useful to distinguish between what we take for granted (the facts) and that which we allow ourselves to put into question. But what is a hypothesis today may become sufficiently supported by evidence that we eventually stop questioning it -- it may become a "fact" tomorrow. Like evolution. More rarely, the opposite also happens: yesterday's "fact" can cease to be taken for granted today. One example I can think of is the absolute status of time and space, which were "facts" for all those physicists from Newton until the 19th century, but became "questionable" with Einstein.

In case I'm being too obscure, to me "fact" and "hypothesis/law/theory" are relative terms in science. Facts are the things we don't question at present (can I tease Ken and call them "science's axioms"? ), while the rest are what is under discussion, what's "on the table", to use a term from business.

P.S. I posted this reply before noticing George's quote of Moti Ben-Ari. I'm glad to see that he agrees with me.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

The subject and the object do not coincide when psychology is being a science, i.e., when a scientist is learning about a brain, that scientist is not the brain being studied (introspection is a special component of cognitive study and is largely discounted as science, though is probably worth its own consideration). There are many forms of "soft science", some extremely soft, like the science of art appreciation. There are certainly people using science to try and study what constitutes good art, or how art affects people. My point is, we don't need a broad brush that says that is or is not a valid pursuit, we just need to be able to tell when art appreciation is being addressed scientifically, and when it is not. That has to do with objectivity and demonstrability, not consensus-- indeed, there's probably more consensus on what is good art than would show up scientifically.

But I will grant you that we are a long way from understanding consciousness using science, if that's what you are driving at, and it is not at all obvious to me how much progress science can ever make into that issue, expressly because of the problems with objectivity.
I frankly don't know, but what difference would it make? The scientific method was not handed to us by Galileo like the Ten Commandments, it was something we created based in part on his breakthroughs.
No disagreement from me. I never thought the problem with evolution being "just a theory" was the understanding of the "theory" word, it was the understanding of the "just" word. All "theory" means is a unification of facts into a consistent conceptual tapestry with the intention of generating testable hypotheses. If that sounds like a small thing to those people, that is the educational problem right there.
Yes, I agree, scientific facts result from the interaction with scientific methodology and reality, but there's nothing written in stone about them.
Don't call them axioms, even in teasing-- they don't like it. Because the role of axioms is to make sense of facts, to unify facts, not to be facts.

__________________
If we understood everything going on in the head of a pin... we still wouldn't know not to step on the pointy end.

People think the problem with models is that they are limited by our minds, but the greater problem is that our minds are limited by our models.

Although that is certainly a response, I have to say that I find it rather weak.

Psychology is a science when psychologists study the brain -- don't we call that neuroscience?

Introspection is "largely discounted as science"? Well, I guess it's not a science in itself, but psychologists have certainly used introspection as form of gathering data in their discipline.

I really don't see why the nature of the method should make any difference. Psychology, by definition, is the study of the human mind (except for hardcore behaviourists). Every psychologist is human and has a mind, so they will never be able to separate their 'object' from themselves. According to you, that should doom psychology's prospect of being a science...

It gets even more interesting when we move on to other human sciences. How about sociology? Here, the 'object' isn't even remotely a physical thing, like a brain. It's a society, or a social group. How can any sociologist extract himself from his society in order to study it?

You were the one who complained that I wasn't using 'standard' definitions!

I suspect that Galileo never even mentioned any subject-object dichotomy. I don't think he ever needed such a thing to define the scientific method. I don't think we do, either.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

It would surprise me, too. I have not read much of his specific works to say. I strongly suspect, however, he did grasp the importance of his methodology, and that it augmented his arrogance. He had uncovered a whole new methodology that seemed both irrufutable and predictive. He combined objective experimental work, math, and hypothesis. None of these were original, but the combination of these, apparently, was his new method.

Actually, it was your posts that caused me to ask since you favor the benefits a consensus offers. Ken's view assures me that true science remaining objective will be defended, and I am glad he is doing so.

The idea that "evolution is a fact" is another reason I asked my question. It is hyperbole, IMO. It throws up the pro-evolution banner higher than normal. That fact that it's a theory and, therefore, not a fact in definitional form, is secondary to the effect. Bandwagons and crusades must have numerous catchy call-to-arm phrases. I can't blame them; fact is a close cousin to truth.

I simply see a fact to be something that should be taken as irrufuteable evidence, whether it is an element of a theory, or a stand-alone statement. Evidence for natural selection, branching, transmutation, may be a facts, but not evolution, nor any theory itself. How could a non-provable concept (ie theory) be a fact?

I agree that it can seem a bit hypercritical, especially in general public use. However, consider the consequences if subjectivity is allowed to infuse itself back into science, where teleogoical determinations of scientific data become the norm. Today, religion may seem pushed back and fewer people are as religious as centuries ago, but allow subjectivity back into scientific methodology and aks if those 100 German scientists against Einstein would have been able to overturn him.

Yes, and that diminishes the value of the meaning of "fact". That is where the use of theory is better, since it is more malleable.

Another example, and one more teleological and open to subjectivity, is the "fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe. Had Aristotle been the one to establish the scientific method and the correct meaning of theory, perhaps Aquinas would not have had to wear himself out trying to get the Church and science to come to terms. This would have allowed, perhaps, much greater freedom for new theories.

I think we may have stumbled onto common ground.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

I suspect there is a chance I can show otherwise, but it won't come in some quick statment of his, unfortunately. He seemed to realize just how powerful were the predictions that came from his methodology. [I mention this just in case y'all think there is some real merit in me trying to run down this idea.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

I can be educated about a "consensus" -- for example, a political or moral consensus -- without agreeing with it. I can think of several instances where this happens, and I'm sure everyone else can think of their own examples (though I still feel the word "consensus" is not appropriate for what you're talking about there). Typically, when I disagree with a majority view (not the same as consensus) that's because reason leads me to a different conclusion.

I thought you said natural selection did...

2+2=5 would imply that 0=1 (nothing is the same as something)... Could it really be just in our world that this is absurd?

Define me another one where it isn't absurd.

Regardless of whether mathematics can prove anything, one thing I think we can all agree on is that imagination proves nothing. For instance, and by the way, the set of all sets is not an object in our universe. It's just something we imagined naively with our minds at one time, but as it turns out it's not a particularly logical idea.

But I wasn't asking you to imagine an illogical universe; that's too easy. I'd like to see you define it in concrete terms, constructively. Build a model of it.

As for Bertrand's paradoxes and whatnot, Goedel argues that they are not failures of mathematics, but rather the dead ends of an overambitious project of formal logic. But I'm not talking about formal, symbolic logic here. When I use the words "logic", "reason", or "rational", I mean the plain principles of self-consistency which we all understand and apply in our everyday lives.

That's a particularly weak argument. There is nothing about randomness which makes it illogical.

The randomness in modern science is not illogical; it's the determinism of classical physics that was naive.

(A good example of a fake "contradiction/paradox" that turns out to be no more than a simple misunderstanding born of false expectations.)

To the contrary, the fact that pure mathematics has frequently turned out to be right about the physical world when it wasn't even trying to is strong empirical evidence that it is not arbitrary, but rather intimately bound to reality.

Quite bluntly, it was not Newton's mathematics that failed him in that case, but his physics.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Thank you for your replies, George (and thank you too, Len). When/if you have the time, I am genuinely interested in what Galileo had to say, if anything, about subjects and objects (I'll see if I can find anything, too).

Reading your latest posts, I felt I should clarify one thing to you and Ken: I am not attempting to argue that science is subjective. The kind of consensus I talked about previously (and which I don't think Ken has managed to understand yet) is not something I would describe as subjective. What I've been trying to argue, not very successfully, is for a different understanding of what objectivity is.

Maybe we have. For instance, what Ken says in this post of his is quite close to my ideas.

Just a small comment; I agree with the rest of your post. Irrefutable evidence is often what we think that a fact means in the colloquial use of the term, but I would say that there is nothing totally irrefutable under the Sun. And in another thread I gave an example of a "fact" that, when carefully analysed, is really a "theory" we don't question anymore: the proposition that human beings do not live to be much more than a decade over 100.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire