>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