Inference and its role in NS (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:55 (4874 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Our recent discussions about my position in terms of evolution by NS is illuminated a bit in this blogpost [concerning the role of inference in phylogeny]. [...] This ties to two claims I make repeatedly:
> 
> 1.Science is ONLY about model building. [...]
> 2.Inference always inherits the problem of probabilities...meaning that science (using inference as its primary tool) is only ever about probabilities, and that this means that though we would like them to be dogmatic, scientific "truths" are always approximations.
> 
> I've never been 100% sure what you mean by model building. Is it the same as theory? If not, what is the difference?
> -Sort of. A theory is systematized observation that manages to explain events consistently and with predictability. A theory is a model, only one that has been thoroughly tested. -> I don't think any of us have actually disputed the claim that science is about probabilities rather than dogmatic "truths" when it comes to questions relating to the origin and nature of life and the universe. I would suggest, though, that technology proves there are some objective truths in science, unless we're going to attribute the functional efficiency of our cars, planes, computers etc. to sheer luck.
> -No... still not objective. Our theories involving solid body motion (cars and planes) and electricity (computers) are not immutable explanations, fixed for all time... I miscommunicated, perhaps... It's not sheer luck; it's explanations that fit observation the best. We've tested them enough to trust them. But objective--they are not. Prediction (to me) does not make objectivity. This cuts again to my assertion that there are very, very, few truths in the universe, and unfortunately many of them are tacit... and I just realized a word I never defined in my framework!-> As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? 
> -Each of us as individuals are the ones who decides what is positive evidence or not, but David has iterated on more than one occasion to me that his view is not based on positive evidence, but on negative inference. He has admitted that his view is ultimately a leap of faith. -I feel you also misconstrue my meaning of accept. I accept NS it because there's nothing better. Not because it's knowledge. I won't believe it until the explanation has fully coalesced. Does this make sense? David and I don't debate much anymore (just throw articles we're interested in) because at least until I get around to reading his book, I don't think we have much to challenge each other on. He's got his cake, I have my uncertainty of cake. -> As regards our old morality discussion under "The Gods ... All of Them!", in my post of 6 December I slated you for changing the subject whenever challenged and threatened to have you breathalysed if you missed the target again. Satyansh was so alarmed that he called for a time out. I told him that you and I actually had a lot of fun together, and you reassured him: "Trust me, dhw and I are chill cats...he's right, my school performance is keeping me preoccupied, and he's keeping me honest by paying more attention than I am. And letting me know it." 
> 
> I thought that was a delightful way to end the discussion!-And I will let sleeping dogs lie!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"