Inference and its role in NS (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 19:30 (4873 days ago) @ xeno6696

I asked Matt for the difference between a model and a theory. He says: "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." -Two questions: 
1)What is a model? A theory that has not been thoroughly tested?
2)The Big Bang and the Multiverse, for instance, are often called theories.
Have they been thoroughly tested?-I suggested that technology proved there were some objective truths in science. You say we've tested our theories involving solid body motion and electricity enough to trust them, but they are not objective. "Prediction (to me) does not make objectivity." If predictions never fail to come true (cars, planes, computers etc. function), are confirmed billions of times over, and there's no available information to contradict the theory, I'd say that comes as near to objective truth as we can get. It's certainly more objective than the "very, very few (tacit) truths" you say do exist in the universe ... but see the epistemology thread for further discussion.-You agree that each of us as individuals decides what is positive evidence, and you say that David's view is not based on positive evidence but on negative inference. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can draw negative inferences from positive evidence: in the case of design, the positive evidence from an ID-er's viewpoint is that the complex machinery of reproduction, adaptation and innovation works, and all our experience tells us that complex mechanisms that work require prior planning. ("All knowledge we have is ultimately based on experience; an old teacher's adage: there is no better teacher" ... xeno6696, 12 January at 02.16). You may not agree that this is positive evidence, but that is up to the individual. The negative inference is that the positive evidence reduces the probability of chance being able to fashion the mechanism. That in fact is the point where I stick. David, however, goes one step further and concludes that there is a designer ... a view, which, as you say is a leap of faith. -This leads to your next crucial point: "I feel you also misconstrue my meaning of accept. I accept NS 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?"-Not really. Belief requires faith, but "fully coalesced" to me = knowledge, and knowledge has to be the closest we can get to objective truth, which in matters relating to the origin and nature of life and the universe we will probably never acquire (unless, as David says, God himself explains it all). If you have knowledge, you don't need to believe ... you know. Initially I accepted your distinction between "accept" and believe", but in the light of subsequent posts I will withdraw my acceptance! If you don't believe something, you either disbelieve it or you have an open mind, and acceptance does not seem to me to imply open-mindedness. Personally, I BELIEVE that all forms of life are descended from the earliest forms (= evolution), and I BELIEVE that natural selection is the process by which creatures best adapted to their environment will survive. (I do not regard these beliefs as knowledge.) I remain open-minded as to how the mechanisms of life, adaptation and innovation came into being, and as to how innovations and speciation actually happen (also integral to the overall theory of evolution). Using my terms instead of "accept", what aspects of the theory do you believe, and on what aspects are you open-minded?-To complete this section on evolution, I do not "accept" your statement (on the epistemology thread) that: "Based on the success of predictions made on data, Natural Selection was chosen as the best explanation for the diversity of life" (was chosen...by whom?). Natural Selection ONLY explains why existing creatures survive. Diversity can only be explained by adaptation and innovation, and if there had been no adaptation and innovation, Natural Selection would only explain why the first bug survived or did not survive!