Why Does God Exist?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Pretty silly there, S.A.M.
Well this depends on what is being measured.
- Many measurements can be made using a machine.
- The experimental parameters are set up before the experiment, not post-hoc so the system of measurement should be impartial in that it is not based on the results.
- If there is still a worry as to the measurements in question, and a machine can not be used to quantify the data, then a double bind method can be employed.
The experiment is repeated and can be done so in other labs.
The results are recorded as “statistically” significant. Which is not to say they represent reality, but they "probably" do (and that’s taking probable quite literally
What if my model is wrong? Do the repeated results (obtainable by all who use my design) still represent reality?
Drugs.
Anyway, if your model is wrong, it will not match observations of reality. If it does, then it's not wrong!
-:m: :m:
And the model design depends on?
Dispute away there sammy. Knock yourself out.Very objective of you
The model design depends on how well it fits observations.
Newton came up with a model for gravity. It was (and still is) very accurate.
When people started observing odd things about Mercury's orbit (that did not follow Newtons model) a guy named Einstien came along and refined it. So far, no exceptions to this refined model have been found.
It's very difficult to know what you're getting at with these questions.
The observations can be absolutely correct in a limited model, but the correctness of the model itself is based on subjective experiences which redefine these limits and hence indicate the inaccuracy or incompleteness of a model. e.g. rabbits were used as a model for atherosclerosis for many years until someone realised (through observations in a different model) that the response to cholesterol feeding and hence development of atheroscleosis was different in rats, rabbits and hamsters.
Told you, I'm disputing that "science does not rely on subjective experience for the experimental aspects of testing a theory."
This is completely wrong.
Observation are neither correct or incorrect. Observations are neutral. The correctness of the model is based on how well those observations agree with it.
So? This is nothin but strong support for the scientific method. No one ever said madels were correct. Only that some are better at predicting reality than others. This rabbit model was clearly flawed and corrected.
Scientists used to think the earth was flat too.
Are you trying to argue that science sucks as a modelling method for the cosmos? Or that religion is somehow just as good or better? I sure hope not...
Oh. Ok.
Science does not rely on subjective experience for the experimental aspects of testing a theory.
Scientists have subjective opinions regarding their pet theories. The theory is objectively put to the test and found worthy or not.
Instead of me repeating myself over and over, why dont you give me an example of how valid scientific results are achieved by subjective judgements.
No more verbal ping-pong.
Okay I did not put that too well.
The observations either support or disprove a theory but are dependent on the model and tools available.
What, according to you, determines the selection of a model for testing an experimental theory?
Why do you say objectively put to the test?
The test is not objective as it has many variables which need to be controlled (and this depends on complete knowledge of the system, which itself is an impossibility). One test is not sufficient in itself. Repeated tests by one scientist alone are insufficient to establish a theory. Differences in the model using the same theory can give different results. The establishment of a concept is always within defined parameters (under such conditions, using such protocol, such reagents, such tools, such analysis).
The final conclusion is a consensus, accepted by a majority based on the absence of probability of negative results within these parameters.
I just told you. They are valid according to the strength of the model in predicting the results within defined parameters.
No, no, no!
The observations either support or do not support a theory and are independent of the model
How could the observations of Mercury's anomalous orbit be dependent on Newtonian gravitation? They were completely wrong according to Newton.
And the tools available only limit how well you can verify your model. Like gravitation.
Accurate models are in zero way dependent on observations or tools. Models are supported by observations and tools. If you can't test it, it's not a model. Like string theory.
First, the model is the theory. Means the same thing. Newtons model for gravity was his theory of gravity. Models/theorys are tested by trying to verify predictions made by the theory/model.
Planets should move in thus-and-such a fashion according to newtons model. We observe them and they do! Great! ... Wait. Mercury dosen't. Wtf? And we make a better model.
Model is a theory?
Are we using different concepts here?
My definition of model is not a theory.
I have a theory that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis.
My test model is either an epithelial cell, an animal or a human.
My design is the experimantel model I use to test my theory.
i.e. my definition of a model is a representation of a system (an idea) that I use to construct explanations about the way I think something works.
Last edited:
Sam, you do not understand science. I don't know what else to say.
You say "model" and "theory" as if they were seperate things. You confuse the subjective feelings of scientists for the accounting of experimental variables. What, exactly, do you think the word "objective" means?
You seem to think that theories/models of nature are only valid under certain conditions. (if that were the case, they'd be tossed as models).
The fact that controlled experiments are done does not mean they have limited validity, only that the control of variables can help isolate what you are examining.
Some of what you say is true:
Correct.
Arrrgggghhh!
"Theory:
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations."
We're talking past each other. You are using "model" as the physical representation of something. I am using it per the above definition.
Ugh.