9 edits
Originally posted by wildgrass
What? You are currently working on a scientific theory that is based on pure deduction but does NOT explain/interpret any available empirical evidence? Is that even possible? I am not aware of any theory, ever, that was not an attempt to explain some fact. The strength of any scientific theory lies in it's predictive power; that is, the ability of the theo ...[text shortened]... "our planet orbits the sun because of gravity" is a theory. Can you appreciate the distinction?
What? You are currently working on a scientific theory that is based on pure deduction but does NOT explain/interpret any available empirical evidence?
Yes, and there is nothing remarkable about that.
Is that even possible?
Yes, especially in pure mathematics but also and generally to a lesser degree with certain theories outside pure mathematics (such as what I am currently researching ) that require only pure deduction (as opposed to actual empirical evidence) to prove them. Have you heard of a mathematical/deductive proof? What is the essential 'empirical evidence' from the real material/physical world which a pure maths theory is 'based on'?
The strength of any scientific theory lies in it's predictive power; that is, the ability of the theory to accurately predict some observable fact.
When you say "observable fact", do you mean an "observable fact" about the real world as opposed to, say, a mathematical fact? What about a theory about pure mathematics?
theories are explanations of facts.
not necessarily because they could be theories just consisting of extrapolations. For example, if I observe 24 out of 100 rabbits being totally white, I may, whether correctly or incorrectly, extrapolate from that that about 24% (lets say ±5% ) of all rabbits are totally white. Then my 'theory is that about 24% of all rabbits are totally white. Lets say my 'theory' just happens to be correct and then is proven to be correct so also becomes a 'fact' ; still, saying 24% of all rabbets are totally white won't be an "explanation of the fact" that 24% of all rabbets are totally white because it doesn't explain WHY ~24% are totally white.
"our planet has orbited the sun" is a fact,
and a proven theory ( 'proven' unless you allow for some pretty weird and unreasonable assumptions about planetary motion ).
It was once just a theory that the Earth orbits the Sun because it was once commonly believed the Sun goes around the Earth while the Earth stays stationary.
planet orbits the sun because of gravity" is a theory.
and a fact. The meaning of the word 'gravity' can be viewed as, by definition, whatever causes that and all similar phenomena of bodies attracting and/or orbiting one another not explained by other forces such as the electric force etc. So with that you could argue that if "planet orbits the sun" then it must be true that "planet orbits the sun because of gravity".
Can you appreciate the distinction?
I appreciate that facts are proven theories so all facts are theories but not all theories are facts because some theories are not proven.
Originally posted by humyMaybe you should be telling me. Deduction itself is based on available facts and evidence, law and principle. Why would you formulate a theory on something with no basis in the real/material world?
What is the essential 'empirical evidence' from the real material/physical world which a pure maths theory is 'based on'?
Originally posted by humyThey clearly don't think they can weigh a cloud with scales.firstly, you cannot weigh a cloud with scales
You sure?
You might want to let someone know that factoid, as quite a few people think you can:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-much-a-cloud-weighs
They clearly don't think they can weigh a cloud with scales. Where does it say/imply in that link that they weighed a cloud with scale ...[text shortened]... always the Earth) nearly every day of there life's; I don't know who you are trying to kid here.
Scales are how we measure, right?
scale
noun
a balance or any of various other instruments or devices for weighing
In what sense?
In all senses.
You are a smaller object than the Earth...
And on this earth, there are objects both bigger and smaller than me.
Although I find some objects attractive, it's not because of gravity.
2 edits
Originally posted by wildgrass
Maybe you should be telling me. Deduction itself is based on available facts and evidence, law and principle. Why would you formulate a theory on something with no basis in the real/material world?
Deduction itself is based on available facts and evidence, law and principle.
so does that postfix of "..law and principle. ", which I could interprete as including maths laws and/or definitions, mean you acknowledge that deduction and the science of mathematics may not necessarily all come from empirical evidence in the physical world?
Why would you formulate a theory on something with no basis in the real/material world?
Not sure what your are referring to here but if you are referring to my personal current research;
The theory, which I have already proven so it is a theorem based on definitions and pure deduction similar to a pure mathematical proof, just like a maths theorem, can be applied to the physical world even though it is not based on the real world. Pythagoras' theorem is an example of a maths theorem that can come from pure deduction i.e. with no empirical evidence in the physical world and yet still be applied in useful applications in the real world in engineering etc. My theorem is about probability and can be applied to the real word in the science of statistics even though it isn't based on empirical evidence but rather pure mathematical and deductive proofs.
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They clearly don't think they can weigh a cloud with scales.
Scales are how we measure, right?
using scales is just ONE way to measure; there are many other ways and we don't use scales to weigh clouds. The weight of clouds is calculated via understanding of physics and making certain observations and measurements, but not involving putting clouds on scales.
And on this earth, there are objects both bigger and smaller than me.
so what? Do you deny that you are generally pulled down towards the Earth?
What is doing that 'pulling' if not 'gravity'?
Although I find some objects attractive, it's not because of gravity.
You previously said "attracting" NOT "attractive" as in "pretty". And I said "attract", NOT "attractive" as in "pretty"; Completely different meanings.
Nobody said objects are "attractive" as in "pretty" because of gravity.
Relatively small objects, such as buildings, do exert a tiny gravitational pull on you even though it is too small to detect directly by natural human senses of touch and sight and can only be detected using extremely sensitive instruments that prove it exists.
Originally posted by humyGood God.They clearly don't think they can weigh a cloud with scales.
Scales are how we measure, right?
using scales is just ONE way to measure; there are many other ways and we don't use scales to weigh clouds. The weight of clouds is calculated via understanding of physics and making certain observations and measurements, but not involving put ...[text shortened]... h and sight and can only be detected using extremely sensitive instruments that prove it exists.
I've discovered something more dense than sonhouse.
You.
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassNo, that isn't what I said. You have taken that out of its proper context;. I actually said;
Huh? The application of the theory is empirical evidence. .
"Pythagoras' theorem is an example of a maths theorem that can come from pure deduction i.e. with no empirical evidence in the physical world and yet still be applied in useful applications in the real world in engineering etc. "
(the whole sentence)
Therefore, from the above, I was saying "Pythagoras' theorem", NOT "empirical evidence", can be applied in useful applications in the real world.
Do you agree there are scientific theories (such as Pythagoras' theorem) that are now proven and not by the empirical evidence but rather proven purely deductively/mathematically i.e. proven via reasoning alone?
Originally posted by humyIn general, maths theorems are always proven (they are conclusively true given a set of axioms), and never depend on real world evidence of any kind. They are purely logical constructs. Maths has a different language for such things from science (though related) which often leads to confusion.
so does that postfix of "..law and principle. ", which I could interprete as including maths laws and/or definitions, mean you acknowledge that deduction and the science of mathematics may not necessarily all come from empirical evidence in the physical world?
Originally posted by humyI would disagree. Pythagoras' theorem is not a scientific theory (its not clear whether you are saying it is), and any theory that is mathematical in nature and proven via reasoning alone should not be called a scientific theory but either a mathematical, logical or philosophical theory.
Do you agree there are scientific theories (such as Pythagoras' theorem) that are now proven and not by the empirical evidence but rather proven purely deductively/mathematically i.e. proven via reasoning alone?
12 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI revised
I would disagree. Pythagoras' theorem is not a scientific theory (its not clear whether you are saying it is), and any theory that is mathematical in nature and proven via reasoning alone should not be called a scientific theory but either a mathematical, logical or philosophical theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
and wiki seems to implicitly agree with you on this point.
But, like some scientists that, validly or invalidly, refer to mathematics as a "science" like I do (see http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Whitehead_maths_thought.html "The science of pure mathematics" ) I tend to use the term "scientific theory" slightly more loosely than what I should do implicitly according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method because I see too many similarities between the methods for obtaining mathematical truths and the methods for obtaining physical-world truths and that is why I have been defining, validly or invalidly, like some scientists, mathematics and formulating deductive theorems as a "science". In my own research, I have used methods to prove my theorems that seem remarkably similar to that conforming the very strict definition of "scientific method" .
However, now I have revised https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method in relation to this position, I accept I may have been wrong and thus I will reconsider my position on this and might well change it (to yours). The problem I still have with this is, I would still have a strong tendency to call pure mathematics a "science". From what I understand what "philosophy" typically is, I certainly wouldn't call it "philosophy"! If I stopped calling pure mathematics a "science", not sure what I would 'kind' of thing I would say it is.
Just curious; in your opinion, would you say statistics is a "science"? Is the phrase "the science of statistics" a self-contradiction?
I only ask because no longer totally sure whether I should call what I am currently researching a "science". This issue is complicated by the fact that what I am researching isn't ALL just purely deductive and involves SOME testing of statistical equations to some real-world applications (specifically to AI) followed by recommendations (directly based on the test-results of those tests) of how we should best apply those equations to real-world applications
-I might start a new thread specifically about this question.
11 edits
Originally posted by humyJust noticed that
Is the phrase "the science of statistics" a self-contradiction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
refers to "History of statistical science" but does that imply it is correct to say statistics IS a "science"?
BUT, it also says "Statistics is a branch of mathematics ..." and if mathematics isn't a "science" then surely that implies statistics isn't a "science" ?
ANYONE;
Is it correct or incorrect to say "statistics is a science"?
Or does it just depend on exactly what you currently happen to be referring to by the word "statistics"?
4 edits
ANYONE; do you agree with the following assertions;
All facts are theories with proof that they are true. If you make a maths theory that you initially had no proof for and then later in time prove it with a mathematical proof, then it becomes both a fact and a proven theory (and a theorem). But if you never made that theory prior to its proof but rather merely accidentally discovered it directly with a mathematical proof, then you might argue it is misleading if not semantically incorrect to say it is a "proven theory" because the word "proven" is in past tense and can give the false impression that you once had it as an unproven theory. But, even in that case, it is still at least a "theory with a proof that it is true" even if you insist it cannot be a "proven theory" because you can imagine hypothetically first not knowing of the proof and so just having it as an unproven theory and then later in time coming to know its proof and via that means you can still view it as a "theory with a proof that it is true".
?