A Modest Thought Experiement

_{Barry Arrington

October 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Assume the following facts for the sake of a thought experiment:

There are two competing explanations for a particular phenomenon, which we shall call “Explanation A” and “Explanation B.”

Explanation A indubitably qualifies as a scientific explanation.

Just as indubitably Explanation B does not qualify as a scientific explanation.

Explanation A is false and Explanation B is true.

Would our materialist friends prefer Explanation A or Explanation B?

Comments

Barry Arrington; @31:
You’ve twisted Neil’s words into agreeing with your assertion that simple truth is what matters. Are you going to make a run at CuriousCat, EvilSnack, and Popperian.
Whether or not I’m twisting his words is really up to Neil, they are his words. But it’s not twisting to take someone’s words at plain meaning. I feel no need to spend time on CuriousCat, EvilSnack, and Popperian. You got Neil wrong enough that I think the point is made. @32:
What an odd thing to say. ...
What an odd response. As I wrote in my “perfectly correct” answer, preferences are irrelevant in this context. 80% of the “materialists” who bothered to respond to your poorly-worded hypo argued against the givens. That’s their only mistake. I learned that in Law School: never argue against the givens, at least not initially. But none of them plainly reject the primacy of Truth, they just question your givens. But they gave you answers that you twist to your preference, which is an odd behavior from someone who claims to agree that “Truth is what matters.” sean s.sean samis_{October 27, 2015
October
10
Oct
27
27
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

I find it surprising that I'm listed as a materialist. I'm not.. Unfortunately, this discussion has turned into a "my way or highway" kind of thing.. Like many controversies, there is not simple black or white, but many shades of gray in between. My point, just to emphasize again, is not that I do not prefer "truth" for its own sake, but I do not know any objective method (a method on which all rational begins agree on) by which we can reach such a truth. Hence, my problem is not related with the ontology, but the epistemology of truth. The objective criterion for preference for the scientific method (hence "my preference for the preference"), on the other hand, should not be the explanatory power, but the predictive power of a theory. Validity of predictions must be a challenge for all rational beings: if you cannot come up with an explanation with better (and here better can be OBJECTIVELY evaluated, unlike usefulness) predictive power, then you should accept (maybe unwillingly, nevertheless still accept as a rational human being) the current theory as the best explanation. However, this point has nothing to do with TRUTH. One controversy here may be the following: Are we closer to the truth with a new theory, or is it just like we are floating on a sea of theories with truth nowhere to be seen around? I do not know...CuriousCat_{October 27, 2015
October
10
Oct
27
27
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Sean,
PREFERENCE is a subjective evaluation.
What an odd thing to say. Of course it is. That is the whole point of this exercise. The point of the post was to gauge whether materialists subjectively preferred "truth" for its own sake. I asked materialists if they would personally prefer a false scientific answer over a true non-scientific answer. Out of the five materialists who responded, you were the only one who gave the obviously correct answer. Results of my little experiment: 80% failure rate on the part of materialists. Barry Arrington_{October 27, 2015
October
10
Oct
27
27
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

OK Sean, You've twisted Neil's words into agreeing with your assertion that simple truth is what matters. Are you going to make a run at CuriousCat, EvilSnack, and Popperian.Barry Arrington_{October 27, 2015
October
10
Oct
27
27
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @24:
Sean @ 23. Then you have not read their comments very closely. Neil, for instance, is very upfront about his preference for “usefulness” over truth.
No, I reread Neil’s comments #1 and #6. I think his answers are a valid response to the poor wording of your hypo. PREFERENCE is a subjective evaluation. You asked for a subjective evaluation and Neil replied subjectively (as well as rationally). Neil’s preference is for usefulness over uselessness. That does not mean he thinks the truth doesn’t matter. Truth is what matters, that was my answer and you called that “precisely correct” But “what matters” and “what we prefer” are two distinct concepts. So my “precisely correct” answer didn’t even answer the question you asked! In fact, I’ll wager Neil thinks “usefulness” in this context means something like “useful for distinguishing fact from error, truth from falsehood”. sean s.sean samis_{October 27, 2015
October
10
Oct
27
27
2015
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

EvilSnack, Let me lay it out for your since you don't seem to be able to take a hint. A scientific explanation is an explanation reached using scientific methodology. The word "scientific" describes the process by which the explanation was derived. It may be false; it may be true. But if it was reached using that particular epistemic approach it is scientific, whether it is true or false. You seem to believe that "scientific" is a synonym for "true." Take off your metaphysical blinders and you will see how silly that is.Barry Arrington_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Popperian @ 27: Yes, we all know you always want to play definition derby. We decline.Barry Arrington_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Then you have not read their comments very closely. Neil, for instance, is very upfront about his preference for “usefulness” over truth.
Given that we have yet to agree on terms, is it any surprise that I've had to clarify the answer to my question? And if you read my comment carefully, where are the clarifications I asked for? Or is this even a serious question?Popperian_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

So Newton’s laws were not scientific? Hmmmm. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Exactly what part of the phrase "no longer" did you have trouble understanding here?EvilSnack_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Pessimistic induction: we never have warrant to hold a current theory as not falling into the fate of its many predecessors in the history of ideas.kairosfocus_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Sean @ 23. Then you have not read their comments very closely. Neil, for instance, is very upfront about his preference for "usefulness" over truth.Barry Arrington_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @22: I’m pretty sure those others do agree that Truth is what matters. I am also quite sure they just don’t trust you, so they’re being over-cautious. sean s.sean samis_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Sean @ 20: "Truth is what matters." That is precisely correct Sean. I only wish you could convince Neil, CuriousCat, EvilSnack, and Popperian.Barry Arrington_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

... now I'm interested to see if there's another shoe to be dropped... sean s.sean samis_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Taking the Givens as given, then anyone’s PREFERENCE is irrelevant, and should be so for materialists. If A is false and B is true, that’s that. Truth is what matters. sean s.sean samis_{October 26, 2015
October
10
Oct
26
26
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

You don’t disappoint either, but I have to admit I was a little surprised that you evaded, dodged, danced and obfuscated even after I let the cat out of the bag in comment 14.
I'm surprised you think the cat was in the bag at all, let alone until comment 14. Nor have you answered my questions, such as how being a supposed "materialist" is relevant. I'm disappointed, but can't say I'm surprised.Popperian_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Thank you Popperian. You don't disappoint either, but I have to admit I was a little surprised that you evaded, dodged, danced and obfuscated even after I let the cat out of the bag in comment 14. Points for cheekiness. Barry Arrington_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Why don’t you start out by explaining what you mean by “Matereralistic” and how is it relevant to the question you posed?
For example, if you presented the explanation that something changes "merely when you will it to change" and that can be repeated, that doesn't explain why someone else who couldn't do the same thing, could not. Nor does it rule out the crew of some advanced alien ship in orbit reading your thoughts and bring the change about via some elaborate means that goes far beyond "because you wanted it to" "Because you wanted it to" would contain some truth because the aliens are reading your thoughts. However, it's false because "merely" implies that is the only reason. Nor does saying it occurs for some "inexplicable reason" actually add to the explanation. IOW, you seem to define "material" in what it is not, such as an inexplicable mind in an inexplicable realm.Popperian_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

BA:
I never expected the materialists to show up and admit the obvious conclusion that a true non-scientific explanation must be preferred over a false scientific explanation. I was curious about how they would evade, dodge, dance and obfuscate. They did not disappoint.
Again, it's unclear what being a supposed "materialist" has to do with a theory being scientific or non-scientific. Are are you suggesting all materialistic theories are scientific? Why don't you start out by explaining what you mean by "Matereralistic" and how is it relevant to the question you posed?Popperian_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

BA:
Assume the following facts for the sake of a thought experiment: There are two competing explanations for a particular phenomenon, which we shall call “Explanation A” and “Explanation B.” Explanation A indubitably qualifies as a scientific explanation. Just as indubitably Explanation B does not qualify as a scientific explanation. Explanation A is false and Explanation B is true. Would our materialist friends prefer Explanation A or Explanation B?
First, when you say "Explanation A is false and Explanation B is true." are you saying Explanation A solves a problem, but Explanation B does not? Or are you merely saying that you have some authoritative source that told you Explanation A is True with a capital T? Second, It's unclear as to how answering the question as one of your "materialistic friends" is relevant. Are you suggesting there are no materialistic explanations that are not nonscientific? Are all non-scientific explanations non-material? Third, the question of whether a explanation is scientific is itself non-scientific. For example, an any explanation about what scientists actually do when performing science is part of the philosophy of science. Nor does any such theory need to invoke anything that is non-material. Popper's conception of science, which include his theory of how knowledge grows, is philosophical in nature. It says that science is also a form of criticism. What's unique about science is that criticism also includes empirical observations and tests. However, in both cases, theories are not derived from observations. Rather, they start out as guesses. So, I would say I could prefer an explanation if it is a good explanation and has withstood significant criticism, even if that criticism does not include empirical observations, and it solves a problem better than some other explanation. I As someone who has adopted Critical Rationalism, that is one such example of preferring a nonscientific theory. Furthermore, any claim that the question of what is or is not science would itself be scientific would be circular. I do not discard the current crop of ID because it's not science or "non-material", whatever that happens to mean. I discard it because it's a bad explanation.Popperian_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

BTW, dear readers, I never expected the materialists to show up and admit the obvious conclusion that a true non-scientific explanation must be preferred over a false scientific explanation. I was curious about how they would evade, dodge, dance and obfuscate. They did not disappoint.Barry Arrington_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

EvilSnack, So Newton's laws were not scientific? Hmmmm. I don't think that word means what you think it means.Barry Arrington_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @ 10: The answers to both question is: Because promising to make the laws this way gets you elected as a Democrat.EvilSnack_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

If the scientific explanation is proven to be false, then it means that we have made an observation which contradicts it. This means that the explanation is no longer based on the evidence, and therefore it is no longer a scientific explanation.EvilSnack_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

https://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU J.L. Picard confronts the Kardashians. It's all the fault of "reality TV." There's more fiction now than there ever was. Only now we're forced to accept it as truth. :) BTW, Sev, The Declaration you refer to in reference to the right to persue happiness begins with the assumptionbrhat we are created beings, in the image of the creator, and that our dignity stems from this relationship. Making oneself out to be a woman when one is not, would thus be a violation of that relationship, and forcing society to go along with that blue by rewriting laws to accommodate their "right" to use the bathroom of their chosen identity, is nothing short of tyranny. But I should also like to point out two glaring inconsistencies in the "progressive" stance on thus issue: 1). Progressives believe that a sex change operation truly changes the gender of the individual undergoing the surgery. Yet at the same time, progressives want to pass laws that will allow transgendered people to use the public restroom of their chosen gender identity. If they are truly changed, why then does there need to be a law that accommodates them? 2) Related to that is the issue of sexual preference and choice. Since progressives like to lump "transgendered" people in with all LGB people, thus LGBT, why is it acceptable for a person to change his/her gender if they have feelings of being somehow in the "wrong body," but it is not OK for a person to attempt to change his/her sexual preference, if he/she believes that his/her sexual feelings are wrong or nor normal? I really would like you to try to answer both questions.CannuckianYankee_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Assume the following facts for the sake of a thought experiment: There are two competing explanations for a particular phenomenon, which we shall call “Explanation A” and “Explanation B.” Explanation A indubitably qualifies as a scientific explanation. Just as indubitably Explanation B does not qualify as a scientific explanation. Explanation A is false and Explanation B is true. All models are wrong, but some are useful. — George E. P. BoxZachriel_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

What does "useful" mean in this context? If a scientific explanation is wrong but useful, does it mean it is useful because it may lead to the "construction of other theories"? However, if apply the same criterion (wrong but useful) those other theories, then would not this lead to an infinite regress, in which "truth" is never the aim, but "usefulness" (in this context) is? On the other hand, if useful here denotes "predictive power", then I agree with this statement. This is basically the approach of almost all scientific fields, except maybe physics (though my own opinion is that the laws of physics should not excluded from this criterion, that is all physics models are WRONG, but have predictive power within certain spatial windows), and particularly applies to engineering fields, medicine, economy, physiology, etc. Now, of course there is a middle ground here, in which useful explanation may refer to "a wider -a questionable word- understanding -another questionable word- of the concept at hand". My own view here is pretty much old-schooled Popperian: sole explanation without prediction is not scientific, hence I do not equate usefulness of a theory to its explanation power. Of course, an (testable) explanation may lead to other explanations with other testable predictions, that's fine. However, it is the predictive capacity which values an explanation, in my opinion. One final note: There are statistical models which we know to be wrong, but may prefer it over models, which we do not know to be wrong. This is basically because the predictions of these wrong models are "better" (having minimum variance error, that is the predictions are more precise) compared to the "maybe-not-wrong" models. Hence, we may choose precision over accuracy in some cases. So, it is still about prediction. Explanation is a byproduct of prediction (or maybe it's better to say, explanation follows prediction) in most sciences. Unfortunately, Darwinian evolution and new theories of parallel universes has turned or are currently trying to turn this upside down. And the second final note, we will never know that "Explanation B is true" so I cannot figure out how that thought experiment may be.CuriousCat_{October 25, 2015
October
10
Oct
25
25
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Here at UD Neil claims to be a pragmatist. Over at TSZ Neil ignores criticism. But if ignoring criticism is what works, who can complain?Mung_{October 24, 2015
October
10
Oct
24
24
2015
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Assume the scientific answer is both false and useless and the non-scientific answer is both true and useful.
In that case, I'll go with the useful answer (i.e. the non-scientific one).Neil Rickert_{October 24, 2015
October
10
Oct
24
24
2015
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

"what's not to like?" Mung after reading some of the comments on your thread, apparently your likable charm is lost on the TSZ crowd :) As for myself, I'm the second guy on the 'likable' slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMENQeCbxfIbornagain_{October 24, 2015
October
10
Oct
24
24
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply