I guess we just think in different ways.
Why Does God Exist?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
I guess we just think in different ways.
But... but... you're training to be a scientist. What are they teaching you??? How can you ever hope to perform "objective" experiments on a new nutritional supplement or dietary regime?
Precision in language is important: Science is comprised of objective propositions. Nature, which science studies, must be subjectively experienced; all experiences -- thoughts, feelings, sensory perceptions of things in nature, etc. -- are inherently subjective. The activity of scientific experimentation is not exempt from this rule; and yes, measuring equipment is a part of nature. In fact the testing of a theory is ultimately subjective. Rulers and calipers do not measure length by themselves.
Solves that issue.
I think you're misusing the words and applying "subjective" in the wrong sense.
If I create a vacuum in a cylinder and drop an approx. 1g weight and time its fall against the oscillations of a fountain of cesium atoms, how, exactly, does subjectivity come into play?
Our perceptions of things are obviously subjective, but just because a human sets up the experiment does not, if properly done, make the experiment or the results subjective.
No one can "subjectively" experience the charge on a single electron, but by measuring differences in the motion of tiny oil drops (against calibrated standards), one can "objectively" determine this charge.
What is this general distain for "objectivity" that goes on throughout SciForums? It's a real word and it works quite well when used properly.
Why? How does this counter anything I've said?
I'm beginning to think there is a whole lot more to Western atheism than I had imagined.Why? How does this counter anything I've said?
Sam, you are way too cryptic for me at times.I'm beginning to think there is a whole lot more to Western atheism than I had imagined.
Sorry, it's not intentional. I know what I think and why, I'm just not good at dissecting my thoughts and articulating them well enough to be understood.
And sometimes, I run out of patience.
I understand.Sorry, it's not intentional. I know what I think and why, I'm just not good at dissecting my thoughts and articulating them well enough to be understood.
And sometimes, I run out of patience.
What do you mean: “What if my model is wrong?”
I think the model depends on the question.
Do you mean that the question is wrong or the method of obtaining the data is wrong? Certainly the interpretation of the data may be incorrect. Also, it depends on if the data are used to quantify something or to correlate with some phenomenon.
For example: High ice cream sales correlate with high incidences of murder. Does ice cream affect murder rate? No. Both are correlated to warm weather and increased people out and about.
The data are clearly repeatable and they are correct.
The model of collecting the data is correct and repeatable.
The interpretation of the data is incorrect if one is to say high ice cream sales increases murder rate. No. But one can say: high ice cream sales are correlated with an increased murder rate. Yes.
I hope I wrote that correctly
MII
What do you mean: “What if my model is wrong?”
I think the model depends on the question.
Do you mean that the question is wrong or the method of obtaining the data is wrong? Certainly the interpretation of the data may be incorrect. Also, it depends on if the data are used to quantify something or to correlate with some phenomenon.
For example: High ice cream sales correlate with high incidences of murder. Does ice cream affect murder rate? No. Both are correlated to warm weather and increased people out and about.
The data are clearly repeatable and they are correct.
The model of collecting the data is correct and repeatable.
The interpretation of the data is incorrect if one is to say high ice cream sales increases murder rate. No. But one can say: high ice cream sales are correlated with an increased murder rate. Yes.
I hope I wrote that correctly
MII
Well I just went this route with Supe, but I think the model (as the representation of the system you want to explore) affects the question you ask. You obtain certain results which you interpret based on the model used. But the model itself may be an incorrect representation of the system so the results describe the model but not the system.
I hope that was not too obscure.
Well I just went this route with Supe, but I think the model (as the representation of the system you want to explore) affects the question you ask. You obtain certain results which you interpret based on the model used. But the model itself may be an incorrect representation of the system so the results describe the model but not the system.
I hope that was not too obscure.
Seek and ye shall find?
Sam is using "model" to mean an actual physical "model" of some system on which to experiment. I (we) are using "model" to denote the theory as in:What do you mean: “What if my model is wrong?”
I think the model depends on the question.
Do you mean that the question is wrong or the method of obtaining the data is wrong? Certainly the interpretation of the data may be incorrect. Also, it depends on if the data are used to quantify something or to correlate with some phenomenon.
For example: High ice cream sales correlate with high incidences of murder. Does ice cream affect murder rate? No. Both are correlated to warm weather and increased people out and about.
The data are clearly repeatable and they are correct.
The model of collecting the data is correct and repeatable.
The interpretation of the data is incorrect if one is to say high ice cream sales increases murder rate. No. But one can say: high ice cream sales are correlated with an increased murder rate. Yes.
I hope I wrote that correctly
MII
"Newtons model of gravity predicts..."
See? We're having 'sam'antic difficulties. (Ha! I made a funny!)
Certainly your in vitro cell culture work is not going to tell you what exactly happens in vivo. Nevertheless, that can not be your initial question – which would of course relate to the in vitro model. So far no problem. The work you do in vitro will help refine the question you ask in your rodent model. From those observations may come a question about primates. Your questions on primates may not look like those you asked about your cell culture (like – Does chemical A increase the number of cells in my dish?) but it may resemble it: Does chemical A increase the number of cells in a primates nose?Well I just went this route with Supe, but I think the model (as the representation of the system you want to explore) affects the question you ask. You obtain certain results which you interpret based on the model used. But the model itself may be an incorrect representation of the system so the results describe the model but not the system.
I hope that was not too obscure.
The powerful thing of science is that each question has an answer that usually has a probably of >95% confidence of representing reality. Again, the question about the Petri dish will represent the reality of cells in a Petri dish and the question about the rodent will represent the reality of the affect of Chemical A on a rodent. etcetera....
Is there a better approach to understanding reality than the scientific method?
Michael
Theistic dogma has already solved reality and been written down by those privileged to have lived in a time when god was in the habit of speaking directly to, and guiding the hands of, prophets. There is no need to go beyond this simple fact.
I try...
too cute!!