Posted on 01/31/2006 12:52:13 PM PST by PatrickHenry
This thread is intended to be a workshop, where we can thrash out the definitions on which all the science-literate freepers can agree. When we are agreed on one final list, we can then link to it in future threads, in the hope of bringing some order to the linguistic chaos that too often prevails in the science threads.
In discussions about science and philosophy, we must be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. Dictionaries provide multiple definitions, but not all are appropriate in a specific context. It only generates confusion to substitute one meaning where another is clearly called for.
Every specialized discipline has its own terminology. That's what you must learn and use when dealing with that discipline. For example, the word "law" means one thing to a lawyer, another thing to a physicist, and yet something else to a grammarian. If you want to discuss "the law" with a professor of law, you'd best not confuse the conversation with other usages of that word. If you use the wrong terms, you'll fail to communicate. And no, you won't "win" the debate when others fail to reply on your terms. If they don't reply, it's because everyone who knows the topic finds your discourse meaningless.
If you insist on having your own personal language, which no one but you can comprehend, you are abandoning the best tool humanity has ever developed for becoming civilized. If your thoughts -- such as they are -- are intelligible only to you, then you'll have to be content to have your own personal debate -- with yourself.
These are Coyoteman's definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)And this is my own humble offering, which I've posted from time to time in various threads, and which I haven't yet attempted to integrate into the foregoing:Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
FAITH, REASON, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF
Strictly speaking, what one "believes" on faith and what one "knows" are different things.
Belief: One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother.
Faith: Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.
Knowledge: The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence.
Logical Proof: There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, knowledge acquired from sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith, and that term is inapplicable to such knowledge.
Scientific theory: In between mother (knowledge from sensory evidence) and the Pythagorean theorem (knowledge from logical proof) are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are currently successful scientific theories -- testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence). Here too, there is no need for faith, and that term does not apply in the context of scientific theories.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because -- at least in principle -- a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proven) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Confidence: When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. The word "faith" is inapplicable in this context.
It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. Purely theological matters that are believed on faith are not capable of being tested, and thus theological doctrines are not scientific.
Reason: "Reason -- the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses -- is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival." -- Ayn Rand
Many people come into these threads unaware of the vital distinctions between reason and faith. It is necessary to distinguish between an axiom (which is a logical necessity) and an article of dogma (an arbitrary assumption), between objective fact and subjective experience, and between hypothesis (a proposed, testable explanation of an observed phenomenon) and conjecture (a guess based on virtually no data). Understanding these fundamental concepts allows us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based doctrine. Reason and faith are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises, with different goals. When properly understood, they are not in conflict.
BTW, where's Ichneumon on this thread? Haven't seen him...
Those provide enhancements to our sense organs. An example is a telescope that gathers more light than our naked eyes can see. The result, which we sense (even if it's only a readout on an instrument's panel), is still regarded as sensory evidence.
Beliefs aren't necessarily religious, but may be political, social, cultural ...
Such are almost always based on sensory evidence. Thus they aren't "faith based" beliefs. They represent knowledge.
I ignore them. " How do you classify behaviourism vs. Freudianism, or the dispute between them?"
Freud's claims are junk. Behaviorism is mostly junk. The only idea worth anything in behaviorism is the fact that motivation exists. Behaviorists don't have a handle on what motivation is, the importance of rational thought and the fact that people are not statistical objects.
spunkets: I ignore them.
Thanks, but I didn't mean you PERSONALLY :-)
The original topic came up that one theory does not "replace " another theory wholesale, but that the correspondence principle applies. Granted.
I then raised the point that sometimes one "theory" does get replace wholesale by another, citing the examples of phlogiston / quantum chemistry and covalent bonds, or pre-Copernican / Copernican cosmology. I also as a side point raised the issue that at the time the original systems were in vogue, the practice of empiricism was not universal, nor were the terms codifed.
You replied that nonetheless, phlogiston was not a theory. Fine, great.
The question remains, for the purposes of discussion within this thread, how is one to classify the situation where a wholesale set of ideas IS discarded because its foundations are found to be erroneous, and the correspondence principle does not apply?
As a hint to the kinds of things I was thinking of when I wrote this, I asked about psychology, Freudianism, and behaviourism, noting that those latter two are in strident opposition.
g_w:How do you classify behaviourism vs. Freudianism, or the dispute between them?"
spunkets:Freud's claims are junk. Behaviorism is mostly junk. The only idea worth anything in behaviorism is the fact that motivation exists. Behaviorists don't have a handle on what motivation is, the importance of rational thought and the fact that people are not statistical objects.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, by the way. :-)
But my point again, was, for the purposes of classification as put forth by Patrick Henry and Coyoteman, what are we to do with said systems?
Cheers!
I tried to make it clear in the examples I gave that theories with large amounts of irrefutable evidence are not discarded, they end up being contained within the new theory. They are not 2 theories, they are one. The old theory contained in the new one, arises as some limit is approached within the new theory. This must happen, otherwise all the old evidence, all of it, would necessarily be meaningless.
In the case of real theories, it's not just faulty logic and bad assumptions that would be tossed with the bad hypothesis, it's the observations themselves that would have to be tossed. Theory rests on real evidence. If the evidence shows something to be true, then that something is true. Note that "the old theory" with hard evidence was never all that complete. A new theory which encompasses the old is always a more complete theory. That's why science builds, rather than rebuilds.
"But my point again, was, for the purposes of classification as put forth by Patrick Henry and Coyoteman, what are we to do with said systems?"
They are simply failed hypothesis. In each case the logic is unsound and the hypothesis does not represent reality. It may resemble it, but since it does not represent reality, no predictions can be made, only srbitrary ad hoc additional hypothesis can be added after the fact.
I understood that all along, I was just going for the more general case of where one had a widely-accepted system which WAS pretty much entirely discarded...
In the case of real theories, it's not just faulty logic and bad assumptions that would be tossed with the bad hypothesis, it's the observations themselves that would have to be tossed. Theory rests on real evidence. If the evidence shows something to be true, then that something is true. Note that "the old theory" with hard evidence was never all that complete. A new theory which encompasses the old is always a more complete theory. That's why science builds, rather than rebuilds.
See also correspondence principle (as I believe you mentioned). In some cases, the new theory is developed as a result of specific data that, no matter how much you push on it, just doesn't fit into the theory. Ultraviolet catastrophe, as I believe you mentioned as well; not to mention photoelectric effect. Or even the neutrino as an alternative to abandoning conservation laws...OTOH, you sometimes have cases where the new theory is confirmed by otherwise anomalous results (relativity and the precession of the perhelion of the orbit of Mercury).
They are simply failed hypothesis. In each case the logic is unsound and the hypothesis does not represent reality. It may resemble it, but since it does not represent reality, no predictions can be made, only srbitrary ad hoc additional hypothesis can be added after the fact.
THAT's what I was looking for--what to classify them as in the PH/Coyoteman Scientific CatechismTM (suggested sobriquet).
Cheers!
Those are interesting examples, but they apply to the Catholic faith, which has no issue with evolution. It's the Protestants who we're having the argument with.
Thanks for doing this thread!
I wasn't thinking primarily of evolution, but with an earlier post (95, from you) where the issue came up over the definition of faith:
the belief in something for which there is [ no material evidence / sufficient material evidence]...
that is, I was raising the distinction between degrees of faith. The Shroud of Turin can be seen, weighed, X-rayed, what have you; there is more evidence there than just "God told me". The Mons angels are not directly physically measurable, but there were apparently multiple independent witnesses.
The "line" is at a different place, might be one way to put it.
I wanted to make the distinction for the purposes PH's and Coyoteman's definition: otherwise, "faith" might become synonymous with "Pickwickian".
(One might also think of the word "trust", by analogy to the trust a person has in an unfaithful spouse. At first it might be easy to ignore the evidence of cheating...but after you start finding lipstick on shirts or other people's underwear in the bed, it is not so much trust as "willful blindness." )
Cheers!
How about a definition for science? I.e. a philosophical recognition of natural phenomena.
Bump
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.Source (a NASA site): Big Bang Cosmology. Click on "theory" in the first line.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.