Re: Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims

From: SHinrichs9@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 08:21:58 EST

  • Next message: pruest@pop.dplanet.ch: "Functional Integrity in Biology"

    >GM1 The big problem comes in the 3rd paragraph. You write:
    "As explained in Ref. 1, a key logical principle typically
    used in science is proof by elimination, "PE". According to
    PE, if there is a theory that describes a certain real event
    and all other possible natural hypothesis for explaining that
    certain event are false except for one specific natural
    hypothesis, then this one non-false natural hypothesis is the
    correct theory. "

    >GM1 I have been in science for 30 years or so and have
    never heard of such a method.

    You claim you have never heard of it, but in your discussion
    you work with the PE idea. For example, you present examples
    where one had thought they proven a theory true, but turned
    out to be false when other theories not yet determined false
    turned out to be correct. Perhaps you do agree with me that PE
    is a valid logical concept for determining the truth about
    reality. You just wanted to point out that people still often
    make premature conclusions before they objectively rule out
    all the other possible hypothesis. I would certainly agree
    with this point.

    A key logical concept used in Science for determining the
    truth about reality is called Proof by Elimination (PE). If
    there is a theory that describes a certain reality and all
    possible hypothesis for explaining that certain reality are
    false except for one hypothesis, then PE implies that this one
    non-false hypothesis is true. For example, if there were 10
    different possible hypothesis for explaining a certain event
    and it was shown that 9 out of the 10 were implausible,
    implying they were false, then there would be a logical case
    that the one remaining plausible hypothesis was true.

    The two assumptions PE is based upon is that there is a
    correct theory for explaining the reality being investigated
    and that reality follows the law of no contradiction. Without
    these two assumptions reason could not determine the truth
    about any reality, supernatural or natural. If there is a
    correct theory that describes a certain reality and all
    possible hypothesis for explaining that certain reality are
    false except for one hypothesis, then PE implies that this one
    non-false hypothesis is true. If the remaining hypothesis was
    also false then there would be no correct theory which would
    contradict the premise that there is a correct theory. Thus,
    if the premise that there is a correct theory is true then the
    one non-false hypothesis must be true otherwise the premise
    would be contradicted. Thus, PE is derived from the
    requirement for no contradiction which is a fundamental
    logical principal. Since PE is derived from a logical concept
    PE is also a logical concept. Science attempts to use PE and
    other logical concepts to determine the truth about reality;
    thus, the scientific procedure has the potential to logically
    determine something true about reality.

    Making a scientific case for some claim involves showing all
    possible hypothesis are false except for one. Thus, the
    scientific procedure involves determining what are all the
    possible hypothesis and collecting relevant data from
    observations to check if the data implies any of the possible
    hypothesis false. Observation of reality plays a key role in
    the scientific process because observation is the one source
    of information humans themselves have about reality. Thus, a
    scientist job involves collecting as much relevant
    observations through experiments or research to see if any of
    the information implies any of the possible hypothesis false.
    If it can be definitely shown that all possible hypothesis are
    false except for one, then a case has been made that the one
    hypothesis that is not false is true. Hypothesis are shown
    false by either deterministic criterion or indeterministic
    criterion.

    >GM1 The problem is that if all known theories save one has
    been falsified, this is no guarantee that the remaining is
    correct. It also might be wrong and the case may fall into
    one of several possibilities:

    I did not claim all known theories except one falsified, but
    I claimed all possible theories except one falsified.
    Depending upon human knowledge there can be a big difference
    between the two. I agree that for especially continuous
    phenomenon in most cases it is not possible to determine all
    the possible hypothesis nonetheless rule all of them out
    except for one. However, especially for discrete phenomenon it
    is more possible to identify all possible hypothesis and rule
    out all except for one. For example, the number off large
    moons orbiting earth involves a discrete phenomenon. There are
    either 1, 2, 3, … I think it is possible to rule out the
    theory that there are 2 or more. It is evident there is at
    least one, thus, PE determines there actually is only one.

    >GM1 1. no one has thought of the correct theory.
    Aristotelian mechanics was falsified by Galileo, but his
    theory (not falsified) wasn't quite correct either. Newton
    came along and fixed it, but his wasn't quite correct either
    so Einstein corrected that. To date, there is little reason to
    correct Einstein, but that doesn't mean that in the future we
    won't see a need.

    >GM1 2. People reject the wrong theory for inadequate
    reasons. Continental drift is an example of this. Wegner, Du
    Toit and others argued long and hard that the continents had
    been connected and then moved apart. In the 20's the AAPG
    held a conference in which they questioned everything about
    drift including Wegener's parentage. They rejected it based
    upon the notion that there was no mechanism which could
    account for the continental motion. They were wrong. In the
    1960s evidence was found which resurrected the theory and
    provided a new mechanism Thus their falsification of drift was
    false.

    >GM1 3. The mathematics for the development of the theory
    may not have been invented yet. General relativity could not
    be invented until Riemannian algebra was invented in the
    1800s. If anyone had suggested General Relativity to a friend
    in 1750, it would have been rejected as the creation of a mad
    man.

    Those that claimed the planet orbit was a circle were proved
    wrong when it was found the actual orbit matched the ellipse
    better. Those that claimed the circle orbit theory was correct
    never proved there was no other possible orbit theory such as
    the elliptical one. Those that claimed the planet orbit was an
    ellipse were proved wrong when it was found the relativity
    perturbation to the ellipse matched the actual orbit better.
    Those that claimed the elliptical orbit theory was correct
    never proved there was no other possible orbit theory. I could
    go on, but the point is clear, your examples do not show that
    PE incorrectly determined a theory true rather it was the
    human individual who made incorrect presumptions.

    >GM1 4. Our minds very well might not be able to comprehend
    the true theory. This is becoming a worry among physicists
    trying to develop a theory of everything. When we begin to
    work with math of 10-11 dimensions and attempt to deal with
    non-linearities in those dimensions, we may never truly
    understand the full implications of what we have wrought.

    Fundamental physics involves evaluation of fields which are
    defined by continuous complicated mathematical functions.
    Certainly scientist have made great strides in rejecting false
    theories and getting closer to the correct one; however, it is
    difficult if not humanly impossible to determine all the
    possible hypotheses for Fundamental physics nonetheless reject
    all the possible but one.

    >GM1 5. One can never rule out that invisible leprechauns
    actually cause everything to happen in the universe. Thus by
    your methodology, this becomes the correct theory because one
    can find difficulties with every other theory of man. But
    this one can't be so falsified and must therefore be true.

    If all possible natural hypothesis have been ruled out then
    PE implies the supernatural intervened which may be some
    supernatural being like leprechauns or God. This is the point
    I developed in detail in the following URL.
    http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 08:22:25 EST