[Scientific Methods] The art of demonstration

[TheMetrologist]

Hi Walter,

Thank you for your engaging posts. What variety of Theist am I? I’m a Thomist.

Your questions for @Sheldon are a bit of tangent for this thread, but it’s an interesting one nonetheless, and here is my 2 cents:

@Walter

But does that mean that in receiving this knowledge the fallacy of an appeal to authority has been at work?

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy per se, it is just a weak sort of argument. Perhaps the weakest.

That doesn’t mean that authority isn’t epistemically and pedagogically critical. It can be perfectly rational to believe an authority. As I said elsewhere (and it sparked a discussion there too):

@TheMetrologist

@Get_off_my_lawn

“god willed the speed of light to be the same for all observers”

This would count as a reason not to believe him, because students already know enough about science to know that’s just the wrong kind of argument to make.

Of course, the professor needs to make good arguments! But students initially don’t know all that well what good arguments look like, so they have to be guided to go through the motions, like in any other craft. Science is a craft, and we need master craftsmen to guide us so we can devellop their habits. As we accrue those habits, we need teachers less and less. My physics students believe me more than I would like, to be honest…

And also, who are we kidding? None of us have time to re-prove everything. A lot of things - maybe most things - we take on faith that our fellow scientists have done their job. Paradoxically, I think this is true even for the researcher who has to question and disbelieve “everything”, fully aware that so much of the literature is unreliable.

[mordant]

@Walter

if I were to ask them a question about the oscillation of neutrinos between their three different flavours and then received their answer, have I committed the fallacy by just accepting what I’ve been told?

No. An appeal to authority fallacy requires that you appeal to the inappropriate authority for the situation. A physicist would be the correct authority to consult on topics related to physics.

An example of an actual appeal to authority fallacy that I’ve witnessed many times is young earth creationist apologists appealing to people with claimed academic degrees who aren’t paleontologists, geologists, or some other relevant discipline on the question of the fossil record, carbon dating, the theory of evolution, etc. In an extreme and rather infamous example, one of their orgs (Creation Research Institute maybe?) published some years back a purported list of “scientists” who endorse young earth creationism. Someone took the trouble to go through the entire list. Most of them were not even scientists, but technicians (for example their explanation for how the Biblical Flood literally occurred was developed by a hydraulics engineer, and he was one of the signatories IIRC). Only a handful were actual scientists, and all but a couple of crackpots with no professional credibility were in fields irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Walter]

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy per se, it is just a weak sort of argument. Perhaps the weakest.

And yet, Metrologist, even though you qualify your claim, here is a different authority, that appears to contradict what you say.

Appeal to Authority

I just drop this here out of devilment, btw.

[Walter]

That doesn’t mean that authority isn’t epistemically and pedagogically critical. It can be perfectly rational to believe an authority. As I said elsewhere (and it sparked a discussion there too):

I agree.

It can be perfectly rational. And, as Mordant has pointed out, it can also be inappropriate.

However, I stand by what I said yesterday.

For most of us it is a matter of necessity to believe an authority when it comes to matters we cannot directly investigate. Otherwise everything grinds to a halt while we go about the lengthy business of dotting every i and crossing every t.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Sheldon]

@Walter

Since joining I’ve learned and been taught many things. This has happened through discourse and knowledge has been imparted to me by the scientists running the forum and other scientists who are members of it. But does that mean that in receiving this knowledge the fallacy of an appeal to authority has been at work?

It’s not fallacious, if that’s what you’re asking, as the knowledge being shared by the scientists does not rely solely on an appeal to their authority, if it is underpinned by empirically verifiable objective evidence.

@Walter

For example, if I were to ask them a question about the oscillation of neutrinos between their three different flavours and then received their answer, have I committed the fallacy by just accepting what I’ve been told?

Again it would not be fallacious if what was imparted were supported by more than the authority assigned the person offering the answers. Here is

“An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a claim is presented as true, simply because an authority figure said it is, without supporting evidence.”

@Walter

I’m still caught in the position of HAVING to accept what a given authority tells me about something I cannot check, test or verify for myself, by myself.

This is where the self policing methods of science are important, of course we can’t all be expected to understand the evidence sufficiently to make an informed assessment, but we can know that if the claims were insufficiently supported by empirically testable evidence, then there would not be a consensus among scientists best qualified to know.

@Walter

I’d even go so far as to submit that a great deal of science and learning and knowledge is like this. Nobody outside the scientific community can find out for themselves and by themselves much of what they are told. They have little choice but to accept it or to reject, because testing it is usually impossible.

I am dubious that this is the case for a “great deal of science”, the method of science rewards those who falsify ideas as well don’t forget, if someone falsified an accepted scientific theory for example, it would be regarded as a huge achievement and success, as it would advance scientific knowledge.

Perhaps I am not best placed to answer though, as I am not a scientist. I am sure there are others here ore qualified.

[Sheldon]

@fireflies

That’s the problem though. All knowledge has to begin with a presumption, skeptically speaking.

If one considers the very first knowledge we gain, it is dependent on the presumption that our senses are correct and our interpretation of them is valid.

The presumption is reasoned with its consistency, but that doesn’t escape it being a presumption.

Not if the assumption is falsifiable, testable, and can supported by objectively verifiable evidence. That it started as an assumption is then irrelevant, so while all assumptions are equal in that sense, they need not remain so.

[Walter]

It’s not fallacious, if that’s what you’re asking, as the knowledge being shared by the scientists does not rely solely on an appeal to their authority, if it is underpinned by empirically verifiable objective evidence.

Yes, that is the generally accepted approach. By those who understand how the system works. By those people who are well-informed enough and who can think clearly enough about where they learn things and how they obtain knowledge.

But in these dark days of fake news, disinformation, pseudo-science and ideology-driven agendas, what is the average man in the street supposed to believe is the reality of the things he cannot investigate for himself?

I’ve already given a worked example, using myself and the question of how neutrinos change their flavours. Empiricism is fine, up to a point. But it cannot be the be all and end all here. At some point we have to place our trust in authority figures and sources and leave it at that.

Or would you disagree?

This is where the self policing methods of science are important, of course we can’t all be expected to understand the evidence sufficiently to make an informed assessment, but we can know that if the claims were insufficiently supported by empirically testable evidence, then there would not be a consensus among scientists best qualified to know.

Surely appealing to a consensus of authority figures runs the risk of this fallacy?

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for ‘appeal to the people’) is a fallacious argument that asserts a claim is true, or good or correct because many people think so.

If I were to replace the words, ‘many people’ with ‘many scientists’ wouldn’t that align with what you’ve written?

Or have I misrepresented you?

I am dubious that this is the case for a “great deal of science”, the method of science rewards those who falsify ideas as well don’t forget, if someone falsified an accepted scientific theory for example, it would be regarded as a huge achievement and success, as it would advance scientific knowledge.

But I’m not talking about those who are capable of falsifying an accepted scientific theory, am I?

No, I’m taking my cue from The Metrologist’s opening statements, concerning teaching and learning. Whom should I be taught by and whom should I learn from when I cannot verify for myself the truth of what I am being taught and what I am learning? That is really the question I’m asking here. Which, as I see it, isn’t really about the falsification of scientific theories by scientists themselves.

I ask this question, not to be unnecessarily awkward, but because these days it is becoming harder and harder to know which authority figures are trustworthy and which are not.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Sheldon]

@Walter

But in these dark days of fake news, disinformation, pseudo-science and ideology-driven agendas, what is the average man in the street supposed to believe is the reality of the things he cannot investigate for himself?

Not sure I understand what you’re asking me, but what an individual believes is a personal choice of course.

@Walter

At some point we have to place our trust in authority figures and sources and leave it at that.

Or would you disagree?

I’d say it was the method of science we can put our trust in, as its efficacy is manifest in the results, not any individual authority, their work is either validated by the method or not.

@Walter

Surely appealing to a consensus of authority figures runs the risk of this fallacy?

No, since an argumentum ad populum fallacy is a bare appeal to numbers, and I explained a scientific consensus is not.

@Walter

I’m not talking about those who are capable of falsifying an accepted scientific theory, am I?

My point is that if any scientist’s work was dubious it would be exposed by the method itself.

@Walter

Whom should I be taught by and whom should I learn from when I cannot verify for myself the truth of what I am being taught and what I am learning?

The method itself verifies the claims, or does not, it’s reliability is manifest in the results.

@Walter

these days it is becoming harder and harder to know which authority figures are trustworthy and which are not.

I imagine this was always the case, but the level of trust one places in any method, ought to reflect how reliable that method is, if one cares to believe only what is true, then one ought to be sceptical and critically examine claims of course. While no method is or can be infallible, the scientific method is demonstrably and exponentially more reliable than any other other, whether one understands its ideas or not, they work in and reflect objective reality, or they are discarded.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@TheMetrologist

@Get_off_my_lawn

Shit in, shit out. Data is king.

Yes and no. “Data is king” is not something I would agree to unqualifiedly. […] “data worship” […] ‘data’ collection that amounts to little more than tallying instrument indications and falls short of genuine measurement. […] “data masturbation”

I feel a little explanation is in order here. My “shit in, shit out; data is king” mantra is short hand notation for something more precise, namely the following: If your abstract model does not agree with reality, it’s the model that is wrong or inaccurate, not reality. While it is can be possible to extract interesting and relevant qualitative information from even naïve models, you’d better make damn sure your model, your assumptions, and your empirical input is on firm ground before you aim for quantitative solutions and sweeping conclusions. Or put another way: If an abstract model gives wrong answers, trust the real world, not the model. And if your abstract model returns correct answers, you should still be wary, as you can be severely misled by getting the right answers for the wrong reasons.

Edit: Oh, and regarding “data masturbation” — the same can be said about giving undue trust to models and theoretical approaches: “formula masturbation”.

[CyberLN]

@Walter

At some point we have to place our trust in authority figures and sources and leave it at that.

One never has to “leave it at that.” You can be an agnostic believer in something asserted via the scientific process. That is, you trust it to be true but admit you haven’t personal knowledge that it is such. You have trusted the science (and those who do the scientific work) that indicates it to be the case.
It’s trust in a methodology, rigorous testing, data, analysis, and rigorous challenge by trained, skeptical people, not an appeal to authority.
Hearing a practitioner of science say, “The data indicate…”, “We think…”, “It appears that…” is common. It seems to me that most of the authorities don’t even appeal to themselves . Well, perhaps some authorities on religion do.

[fireflies]

@TheMetrologist

I would say instead that the very first starting points of our knowing are the things we know naturally - and hence with certainty.

How can we be certain of what we “know naturally” though? If we hold it up to criticism, we have nothing independent by which we can validate it.

If our senses are wrong, how would we know?

When I speak of assumption/presumption, I don’t mean initially by choice. We begin with our senses, naturally, and it is only once we understand enough to question that we are then capable of questioning our senses, but we have no means to objectively validate them, only inter-subjectively, which is then still filtered through those same senses we would be questioning.

@TheMetrologist

@fireflies

The presumption is reasoned with its consistency, but that doesn’t escape it being a presumption.

I don’t know that this means. What do you mean by “reasoned with its consistency” ?

The presumption is reasonably held based on the consistency of our senses. If we got inconsistent results from our senses, then we would have more reason to question them, but given their reasonable accuracy, it’s reasonable to presume they are correct.

@TheMetrologist

@fireflies

If one considers the very first knowledge we gain, it is dependent on the presumption that our senses are correct and our interpretation of them is valid.

This presupposes that all knowledge comes from the senses?

What knowledge is fully independent of our senses?

@TheMetrologist

@TheMetrologist

Otherwise nothing would be known absolutely in this way, but only conditionally, as in if p then q.

Here absolutely is only opposed to conditionally, and does not refer to the degree of certainty.

inasmuch that certainty would not be absolute if it was based on certain contingencies that mean the degree of certainty is reduced accordingly, I would say it’s the same thing. The presence of conditionals in any measure mean certainty is not absolute.

[fireflies]

@mordant

No. An appeal to authority fallacy requires that you appeal to the inappropriate authority for the situation. A physicist would be the correct authority to consult on topics related to physics.

I would disagree on this.

An appeal to authority fallacy is when an authority is referenced as support for a claim, without any actual evidence included.

For example, “(physics scientist) says (claim regarding physics) is true, therefore (claim regarding physics) is true.”

The authority need not be incorrect, and as per Walter’s subsequent link, such an instance would be an appeal to false authority.

@Walter

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy per se, it is just a weak sort of argument. Perhaps the weakest.

And yet, Metrologist, even though you qualify your claim, here is a different authority, that appears to contradict what you say.

The context is important here. The site you reference is speaking specifically about fallacies, so in this context, the “appeal to authority” actually means “appeal to authority fallacy”

There can be an appeal to authority which is not a fallacy (things called fallacies are not always necessarily fallacies, hence the “fallacy fallacy” fallacy)

As per your original example, if you asked a physics scientist about the oscillation of neutrinos, the response is not just a bare assertion, it is supportable by evidence.

If however someone else challenged that position on the oscillation of neutrinos and you responded that “(physics scientist) says it is X, therefore it is X”, you would then be making an appeal to authority fallacy because you wouldn’t be addressing the challenge.

What matters is whether the claim - made by an authority or not - can withstand scrutiny in its own right. It is reasonable to accept evidence from an authority that cannot necessarily be tested by oneself, especially considering such has been peer reviewed.

[fireflies]

@Sheldon

@fireflies

That’s the problem though. All knowledge has to begin with a presumption, skeptically speaking.

If one considers the very first knowledge we gain, it is dependent on the presumption that our senses are correct and our interpretation of them is valid.

The presumption is reasoned with its consistency, but that doesn’t escape it being a presumption.

Not if the assumption is falsifiable, testable, and can supported by objectively verifiable evidence.

if we’re talking about senses though, they’re not falsifiable (beyond any potential inconsistency of results), they’re not testable (again, beyond consistency), and cannot be objectively verified independently of themselves.

If we consider two people. Person A is a regular human being, Person B is a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer that feeds it equivalent data identical to the sensory data received by Person A (i.e., if Person A acted as Person B intended, Person B would receive the same data).

How could person B determine that they are different from Person A? If they think they are seeing an object, and they reach out and touch it, they’re just receiving sensory data giving that impression. If they speak to someone who confirms their experience is valid, again, it’s just sensory data from a computer, not reality.

Person B has no way to bypass that computer interface - their sensory data. Everything remains consistent to them. They see a flame, they put their hand in it, they experience pain. The fact they have no hand and no body in reality doesn’t negate this.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@fireflies

if we’re talking about senses though, they’re not falsifiable (beyond any potential inconsistency of results), they’re not testable (again, beyond consistency), and cannot be objectively verified independently of themselves.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. We can test our eyes with optical instruments that have orders of magnitude better spectral and spatial resolution as well as sensitivity. We can double check things we hear with microphones and proper processing circuitry and algorithms. We can make electronic “noses” that are more sensitive than our noses. We can make sensors that can sense physical structures that can rival or are better than our sense of touch. Thus, we can check our senses using technical equipment, and we can falsify the conclusion we get from our senses when we for example conclude that “there is nothing there”. Concrete examples: use a microscope to se bacteria and viruses that are too small for our eyes to see; use microphones to detect sound outside our hearing range or below our hearing threshold. And we can use them to check for hallucinations of different kinds.

[Sheldon]

@fireflies

if we’re talking about senses though, they’re not falsifiable (beyond any potential inconsistency of results), they’re not testable (again, beyond consistency), and cannot be objectively verified independently of themselves.

Not sure I follow, we can test what we perceive through our senses by using methods designed to remove subjective bias.

[mordant]

@fireflies

I would disagree on this.

An appeal to authority fallacy is when an authority is referenced as support for a claim, without any actual evidence included.

I was presuming an actual appropriate authority would have evidence to point to, but yes, it is possible they would not, and that would also be fallacious.

There are situations where specific people, including scientists, have slipped into crackpot theories or been found to be “cooking the books”, etc. It should go without saying that those people would not count as valid authorities.

[Walter]

Thank you for your clarifications and responses, Sheldon.

To address this…

Not sure I understand what you’re asking me, but what an individual believes is a personal choice of course.

I suppose what I’m trying to get at is this. If scientist A makes claim X and scientist B makes claim Y, how does the layman tell which scientist’s claim is the more trustworthy? The layman hasn’t the means of finding out for themselves if X or Y is the truth. This kind of situation isn’t even just a hypothetical exercise, btw. Consider the situation in quantum physics right now.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

The Wiki above page lists thirteen (13) different main interpretations.
So, is there a consensus of scientific opinion on this that the layman can put his trust in? It seems not. Therefore, what should the man in the street do?

The method itself verifies the claims, or does not, it’s reliability is manifest in the results.

If you mean the scientific method, then once again isn’t this something done within the scientific community? Where one scientist challenges the methodology of another? Which doesn’t address the issue I’ve been describing.

Is the layman expected to examine what a scientist claims through the lens of their understanding of the scientific method? That is what I’m asking about. Not what happens within scientific circles but outside of them, in the everyday world. What then?

I imagine this was always the case, but the level of trust one places in any method, ought to reflect how reliable that method is, if one cares to believe only what is true, then one ought to be sceptical and critically examine claims of course. While no method is or can be infallible, the scientific method is demonstrably and exponentially more reliable than any other other, whether one understands its ideas or not, they work in and reflect objective reality, or they are discarded.

For the record Sheldon, I actually agree with the stance you’ve been taking here.

But I’m testing what we agree on by asking these questions. It’s nothing personal. I just happen to think that we should test our beliefs to breaking point to see if they really do hold up under scrutiny.

Yes, I agree that science is demonstrably more reliable than any other method of investigating reality. And to refer back to the issue under the spotlight - how does the non-scientist judge what is trustworthy - let me tell you of my experiences in the Ex-Christian.net forum.

Christian apologists would sometimes visit the forum, not just trying to evangelise but also to try and make successful arguments for their beliefs. The main Achilles heel of the more hard-line Young Earth Creationists was their rejection of orthodox science in favour of what they called Creation ‘science’.

So we would ask them if they relied upon orthodox science. E.g., “Are you relying upon orthodox science now to post your message or can Creation ‘science’ describe how your computer works?” In every case they waffled, equivocated, denied or dodged the question. Their ‘science’ was only good for supporting their beliefs - which is what it had been invented to do.

Unlike orthodox science, it could say nothing of any use about the way reality actually works. So, the flaw in their argument could be seen by what they relied upon. They relied upon orthodox science, just as much as we do. But because of the roadblock of their religious beliefs, they could never admit it that this was so.

And this is therefore a worked example of the very point you made, Sheldon. Proper science IS demonstrably more reliable than Creation ‘science’. The Creationists I mentioned didn’t understand orthodox science, but when it was brought to their attention, they DID realize that their lives demonstrated its reliability. And then they retreated into dogma.

I would therefore submit that as well as the point you made, there’s another that stands with it and agrees with it. Specifically, that if someone relies upon something they can’t very well deny the thing they rely upon. At least, not without catching themselves in a contradiction or an outright lie.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Walter]

My favourite worked example of the situation you describe, Get_off_my_lawn is the Hawking - Penrose Sinularity theorem, which appeared to mathematically prove that universe emerged from a space-time singularity.

One of their assumptions was demonstrated to be wrong, twenty-eight years after they published. The real world rudely disagreed with their model. Unfortunately, despite both scientists publicly withdrawing their work, twenty-seven years on, the notion of the universe originating from a singularity still persists in the public consciousness.

And in the minds of certain Christian apologists who persist in invoking this singularity as ‘evidence’ that science agrees with Genesis 1 : 1. That god created everything from nothing.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Walter]

Please note my agreement with Sheldon, CyberLN.

I AM an agnostic believer in things asserted via the scientific process, which I don’t have the personal knowledge to check and test for myself.

Therefore, I DO trust in a methodology, rigorous testing, data, analysis, and rigorous challenge by trained, sceptical people - and in the doing so, I am not relying on an appeal to authority.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Sheldon]

@Walter

If scientist A makes claim X and scientist B makes claim Y, how does the layman tell which scientist’s claim is the more trustworthy?

I can only speak for myself, and if an idea can get only one scientist’s support, why would I invest belief at that point? Again deciding to believe anything is a personal choice.

@Walter

The method itself verifies the claims, or does not, it’s reliability is manifest in the results.

If you mean the scientific method, then once again isn’t this something done within the scientific community? Where one scientist challenges the methodology of another? Which doesn’t address the issue I’ve been describing.

Well that’s an oversimplification of how scientific ideas are verified.

@Walter

Is the layman expected to examine what a scientist claims through the lens of their understanding of the scientific method? That is what I’m asking about. Not what happens within scientific circles but outside of them, in the everyday world. What then?

In what sense? Science works in reality, it’s exponential success is manifest for anyone to see, I don’t need to fully understand every aspect of the design and manufacture of a plane to trust that if it adheres to scientific knowledge it is safe and reliable. What other method can come even close to that?

@Walter

But I’m testing what we agree on by asking these questions. It’s nothing personal. I just happen to think that we should test our beliefs to breaking point to see if they really do hold up under scrutiny.

Well this depends what one wishes to achieve, but yes broadly speaking I’d agree that if one cares to believe only true things, then one should set a threshold for credulity that best achieves this. So while I accept that no method is infallible, when a method like science, that demonstrates a very high bar for validating ideas, has a broad consensus among those scientists who understand that idea best, then I know this reflects a weight of objective empirical evidence it would be unreasonable to deny.

@Walter

Young Earth Creationists was their rejection of orthodox science in favour of what they called Creation ‘science’.

Yes I’ve encountered this, but lets call it what it is, inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity.

@Walter

So we would ask them if they relied upon orthodox science. E.g., “Are you relying upon orthodox science now to post your message or can Creation ‘science’ describe how your computer works?” In every case they waffled, equivocated, denied or dodged the question. Their ‘science’ was only good for supporting their beliefs - which is what it had been invented to do.

That’s because it’s not science, as again the only people denying the facts that contradict their creation myth are doing so based on subjective beliefs.

@Walter

Sheldon. Proper science IS demonstrably more reliable than Creation ‘science’.

Well yes, but I don’t think there is any such thing as creation science, it’s magic and appeals to mystery.

If anyone denigrates scientific facts, then there is not much, in my experience, one can do to dent that delusion, but yes the irony of someone denying say the age of the universe or the fact of evolution, then going to see a doctor when they get sick, whilst still praying to recover mind, is not lost on me.

@Walter

And in the minds of certain Christian apologists who persist in invoking this singularity as ‘evidence’ that science agrees with Genesis 1 : 1. That god created everything from nothing.

Then they haven’t read the creation myth in Genesis, or are dishonestly cherry picking it, the scientific idea they cite being discarded notwithstanding. Humans evolved as have all living things, show me anywhere in Genesis where that is mentioned, or their deity taking a time out for hundreds of millions of year to tinker with dinosaur DNA, before wiping them out to make way the next stage that eventually heralded our evolution as one of species of great ape, a mere 200k - 300k years ago.