Science “Proves” Nothing

_{Barry Arrington
October 1, 2014

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When someone says “the science is settled” one of two things is true: (1) they know better and are lying; or (2) they are deeply ignorant about the philosophy of science. Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sydney writes:

. . . science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.

But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing. Every theoretical model is a good description of the universe around us, at least within some range of scales that it is useful.

But exploring into new territories reveals deficiencies that lower our belief in whether a particular description continues to accurately represent our experiments, while our belief in alternatives can grown.

Will we ultimately know the truth and hold the laws that truly govern the workings of the cosmos within our hands?

While our degree of belief in some mathematical models may get stronger and stronger, without an infinite amount of testing, how can we ever be sure they are reality?

I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.

Or perhaps you prefer Popper:

Science does not rest on solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (New York, Routledge Classics, 1959, reprint of first English edition, 2002), 94.

Comments

K "this is no idiosyncratic notion held by one man, but reflects a strong pattern, including the US based National Academy of Science and national Science Teachers Association Board" All I have to say about this, given that is blog is about ID is: explain what is the designer and how it does it. You can't blame an international complot for your lack of answers. "MN is an ideologically loaded, worldview level imposition and straight-jacket on science that begs BIG questions." What is the alternative? How does it produce knowledge?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Science can only be limited by reality. Science cannot be limited to "naturalistic explanations".Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

wd400: Let's cut to the chase: Is it your understanding that "methodological naturalism" allows us to consider the possibility of an intelligent agent acting in nature to cause certain effects? If so, fine. But that is quite a different understanding of methodological naturalism than what most people understand, including Eugenie Scott and the NCSE. In contrast, if by methodological naturalism you mean that we can only ever consider explanations that have a purely natural and material cause, then that is a different matter entirely.Eric Anderson_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

That just says science is limited to naturalistic explanations -- a methological constraint in your own words. You have claimed it's more than that, can you please make a case for that claim.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

WD, on- the- ground demonstrated significance of Lewontinian a priori materialism imposed on science and science education, as in just read on. Here, I clip the linked from NSTA, the US Science Teachers Association board in a July 2000 statement . . . just click on the link as given and read on down, as was suggested above:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> as in, Phil Johnson was dead on target in his retort to Lewontin, science is being radically re-defined on a foundation of a priori evolutionary materialism from hydrogen to humans] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> the ideological loading now exerts censorship on science] supported by empirical evidence [--> but the evidence is never allowed to speak outside a materialistic circle so the questions are begged at the outset] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world [--> but the competition is only allowed to be among contestants passed by the Materialist Guardian Council] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> in fact this imposes a strawman caricature of the alternative to a priori materialism, as was documented since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, namely natural vs artificial causal factors, that may in principle be analysed on empirical characteristics that may be observed. Once one already labels "supernatural" and implies "irrational," huge questions are a priori begged and prejudices amounting to bigotry are excited to impose censorship which here is being insituttionalised in science education by the national science teachers association board of the USA.] in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]
Please, don't try that one on us again. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I can assure you, KF, that I have no idea what you think "the direct force" of Lewontin's comment is, or even what the phrase "ground demonstrated significance " would mean. Can you please, in plain english, state why you think methodological naturalism is such a problem.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

WD400, your trying to dismissively brush aside the direct force of what Lewontin stated and its on the ground demonstrated significance is of no consequence to the force of hat reality. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

RB: Assertions to the contrary do not undo the force of what has already been said. And BTW, geometry is a deductive system of logic. Once we have light instantiating rays which go in straight lines, and once we have solid objects that obstruct, this instantiation is enough for consequences to follow with certainty. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Strange that no one has ever successfully modeled universal common descent. It's as if it never was a real physical phenomena...Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

KF:
that’s a turnabout tactic
No, it's the assertion that you’ve got it backward.
Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? Are you aware that this is a common event, often visible all over the world? Do you understand that...
Your Condescension Ray has no effect on me!
And, geometry is not about “models,” it is about the strictly logical properties of space and objects in XYZ type “flat” space. (and the XY type plane.)
Yet has been used throughout history to build conceptual models of physical phemonema, as have other, equally abstract and logical mathematical disciplines.
"Archimedes developed ingenious techniques for calculating areas and volumes, in many ways anticipating modern integral calculus."
Techniques of great practical value, as they could be used to model actual physical objects.
"The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia."
And to solve a such geometric problems in astronomy is to model them. Successful models enabled the prediction of future astronomical events.
Albeit, as aids to reasoning, we often use sketches that help us visualise the strictly logical relationships.
Such a sketch is a rough conceptual model of the relationship of interest.
Those observations connect to the further points of empirically collectively certain observation on light and shadow-casting, namely applicability of the ray level understanding.
Enabling the conceptual modeling of a lunar eclipse.
Geometry, on logic, tells us just one 3d shape casts a consistently round shadow, a sphere.
And Aristotle used that fact to model the relationship of sunlight, earth and moon, and deduce thereby the shape of the earth.Reciprocating Bill_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Science can ask questions about all those — why would methodological naturalism hold it back in those cases?
For the simple reason that neither of those events are reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. For that matter, information is not reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. So MN fails at trying to explain information. That means they cannot be explained explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Joe, Science can ask questions about all those -- why would methodological naturalism hold it back in those cases?wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

KF, That was utterly extraordinary. I can't belief it's possible to make it less clear what Dick Lewontin was on about but you've managed it. Apart from the fact that Lewontin was talking about Sagan's book, rather than, as you seem to claim, letting slip some grand scientific conspiracy, I don't really care what Lewontin thought. I care about whether methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism, and am yet to see any argument as to why it does...wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

HeKs, I really don't know why you struggle with this so, and makes things so much more complex than they need be. It's quite possible for the best scientific explanation to be poor, in which case p(theory|naturalism) and p(theory|not-naturalism) would both be low, and so p(theory) would be low. I also don't see why a theory would work only under naturalism. The science of, to take your example, of universal common descent is settled. Many religous people accept this without a problem. I'm not sure there is really anything left to say about all thiswd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

This is all very nice, but I still don't know what is the "approximate answer" of ID. There is life on Earth bacause... what happened?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

RB, that's a turnabout tactic, though not the vicious form. Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? Are you aware that this is a common event, often visible all over the world? Do you understand that there is a progression of the Earth's shadow across the Moon, in the form of a part of a circle, ALWAYS. (That is, I summarise here a large body of observations of what are sometimes called blood moons because of the dark reddish-brown colour of the shadowed Moon.) Do you recognise the -- easily confirmed empirically, and mathematically demonstrable -- geometry of shadow-casting, that just one shape will ALWAYS cast a circular shadow right behind itself when directly illuminated? Namely, a "good enough for government work" sphere? And, geometry is not about "models," it is about the strictly logical properties of space and objects in XYZ type "flat" space. (and the XY type plane.) Wiki:
Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: ?????????; geo- "earth", -metron "measurement") is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space. A mathematician who works in the field of geometry is called a geometer. Geometry arose independently in a number of early cultures as a body of practical knowledge concerning lengths, areas, and volumes, with elements of formal mathematical science emerging in the West as early as Thales (6th Century BC). By the 3rd century BC, geometry was put into an axiomatic form by Euclid, whose treatment—Euclidean geometry—set a standard for many centuries to follow.[1] Archimedes developed ingenious techniques for calculating areas and volumes, in many ways anticipating modern integral calculus. The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia . . .
Albeit, as aids to reasoning, we often use sketches that help us visualise the strictly logical relationships. In short, you are making a category confusion error. So, we have a large body of mutually agreed direct observations, for which the odds of collective error are for good reason negligible. If in doubt, cf Babbage's decisive discussion in answer to Hume in the 9th Bridgewater Thesis. Those observations connect to the further points of empirically collectively certain observation on light and shadow-casting, namely applicability of the ray level understanding. Beyond, the earth is 3-D, as looking at a mountain will confirm, or digging a hole. Geometry, on logic, tells us just one 3d shape casts a consistently round shadow, a sphere. As, its cross-section is always circular. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

KF:
You are trying to convert direct observations that directly demand the conclusion on geometry — implications of spatial properties — into data points that require explanation.KF
Quite the reverse: you are trying to convert data points that required explanation into direct observations.
roundness of the lunar eclipse moon shadow is a direct observation and not merely a data point to be accounted for.
The conclusion that the earth must be round was an inference enabled by a model - a geometric model, in this case, not a direct observation. "Demanding the conclusion on geometry" is your oblique description of the application of that model. "The earth is round" was not directly observed - what was directly observed were reductions in illumination of the moon that conformed to a spatial and temporal pattern, the significance of which was recognized only when mediated by a successful model.Reciprocating Bill_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

F/N: One of the darwinist debate tactics is to set up a strawman opposition between the natural and the supernatural, which is then accused of being chaotic and irrational -- a willful distortion in itself . . . at the level of say NCSE, NAS or NSTA board or the like there are abundant and accessible resources to learn that the God of Judaeo-Christian theism (the usual target) is supremely rational and the God of order, as say Newton knew and outright said in his General Scholium to Principia. Indeed this view of God and the world was foundational to the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining systematic attempt to understand the expected rational order and LAWS -- a telling word that is still there in the language of science -- that govern the natural world, c. 1200 - 1700; as in thinking God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him. If we have not been taught this in the course of education in science and its roots, or in history and culture, we have been misled by those who knew better or should have known and done better. But more to the point, by diverting attention from another relevant contrast, natural vs ART-ificial, there is a willful suppression of the fact that blind chance + necessity on the one hand and ART (intelligently directed as opposed to merely stochastic contingency) on the other often leave distinct empirically observable traces. Such as, FSCO/I. That is, the rhetorical tactics used to try to discredit the inference to design as an empirically based, observationally anchored, reasonable, inductive logic-driven, inference to best current explanation scientific endeavour are based on disregard of and/or neglect for duties of care to truth and fairness. Sad. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

HeKS: In the very same passage in The Laws Bk X that I have often cited per Plato's warning on evolutionary materialism's socio-ethical consequences, he marks the distinction that the proper dichotomy is indeed between natural (= blind chance and necessity) and Art . . . intelligently directed contrivance. Where, he then went on to infer from evident order in the cosmos to an intelligent and beneficial creator which he called a good soul. In context, soul is defined as the self-moved and living, a root or first cause of chains of cause-effect action. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

F/N: Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b: truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Any modifier added -- such as so-called "scientific truth" -- that materially changes this meaning, is a perversion of language beyond Jesus' let your yes be yes and your no no. Anything beyond that comes of evil. Where also, to lie is to speak with disregard for truth, hoping to profit by what is said or suggested being perceived as true. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

wd400:
MN applies when you do science (because I really don’t know how else you could…),
So science can't say anything about the origin of the universe, the origin of our plant nor the origin of life? Really?Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Vishnu said:
Theory #2 (which the major news media rarely mentions) says that the atmosphere contains a positive feedback system that, with enough CO2, cause catospophic runaway climate disturbance. Not only is this not settled science, but nobody knows what that the SIGN the feedback is, i.e, which direction, positive or negative. All the hysteria is based on the theory #2.
There's always the possibility I may be wrong, but I have the habit of doing my best to research matters within what is a resonable effort given my background et cetera, and I disagree. I think what we have is a feedback system comprised of the entire planet. Ocean currents, rising temperatures leading to release of Methane gas stored in permafrost. I'll leave it to the people dedicated to professional study of the Earth's climate. Are there anyone else capable of telling us what's reasonabel to expect given the avilable data? Science is an ongoing project and all scientific conclusions are open for revision - if scientific research warrants. I believe science is the only method we can rely on to resolve our problems whatever they may be. I often get the impressino that critics have an a priori theory that if it science, then there's got to be somethinf fishy about it. Is it possible to take a clue from the marvelswe all take for granted, all the result of applied science? What is so special about science when applied to biology and climate that it is subject to so much criticism and denial? Whereas everybody is happy we have such brilliant scientists helping us cure the most threatening medical, agricultural - ans you name it, problems? Who created our powerful pocket computers aka cell phones - marvellous gadgets making the huge 20th century IBM, Control Data or Cray computers look like toys, at a fraction of the cost? There's nothing wrong with criticism of science - if it is done from insight and knowledge.Cabal_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

@wd400 #61
Nah, this is where you are going wrong. MN applies when you do science (because I really don’t know how else you could…), but not when you do philospophy.
I don't know if I'm just not being clear and you are continuing to miss my point or if you are intentionally dodging it, but I'll operate on the assumption that it is the former. If you don't know how one could do science without imposing MN, which is to say, without imposing some a priori philosophical principle that precludes the possibility of invoking intelligent agency as a causal explanation, then I have to wonder if you've been paying any attention here. Furthermore, to say that MN applies when you do science but not philosophy is basically nonsensical. Especially in the context of the current topic. When people claim that 'the science is settled' on some issue, they mean that the conclusion that science has supposedly settled on is true. They don't just mean it is scientifically true but not really true. When people claim that the science is settled on Evolution, or more specifically Common Descent, they are not trying to say that it is scientifically true but actually might very well be false. Now, statements that are thought to be true tend to make their way into philosophical arguments. For example, what if we were to make the following argument: 1) If life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law, an intelligent designer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth. 2) Life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. 3) Therefore, an intelligent designer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth. Of course, under normal circumstances premise 2 would be a question open to investigation which could go either way depending on what evidence is found. However, instead of worrying about the evidence, we can simply make another deductive argument in favor of premise 2: 1) If naturalism is true, life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. 2) One must assume the philosophical position that naturalism is true (Methodological Naturalism). 3) Therefore, life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. We have now determined solely through the deduction of logically necessary implications of MN that all life arose through natural processes and we don't need to look at a single piece of evidence to know this. So, here's the question: Should premise 2, that all life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law, be considered scientifically true, and therefore settled science, and yet very possibly false? The type of distinction you have been trying to make separates scientific truth from actual truth. Under this paradigm, it may well be perverse to question the scientific truth of some proclamation of 'settled science', but it would be perfectly reasonable to question the actual truth of the proclamation. If scientific truth is potentially different from actual truth, where the former may be nothing more than the logically necessary outcome of mistaken philosophical presuppositions, why should anyone give any credence to proclamations that the just-so stories making up the historical narratives of Evolutionary theory are 'settled science', or 'fact', or 'true'?
A naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon might increase your condifence that naturalism is true, but there’s always some probability that super-naturalism is true.
You are falling into the trap of so many naturalists before you, which is that you are creating a false dichotomy between natural and supernatural where the actual scientific choices are natural and artificial (i.e. the product of some artful mind).HeKS_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

RB: Notice, the roundness of the lunar eclipse moon shadow is a direct observation and not merely a data point to be accounted for. Where BTW, modern photos from space are little more than an update to this moon shadow effect, as the point is only one solid body is always circular in projection to the film. Hull down ships are a direct observation of a bulge so that the surface of the earth is known not to be flat. And of course circumnavigation by Magellan's surviving crew members was a final direct observation. Arguably, when that worth reached the Philipines by sailing generally W, having already been there by sailing generally E, that would have been enough. He of course died there, felled by was it a spear. You are trying to convert direct observations that directly demand the conclusion on geometry -- implications of spatial properties -- into data points that require explanation.KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

RB, I suggest you consult 64 above, as from the 4th C BC on, the roundness of the shadow the earth ALWAYS casts on the Moon in a lunar eclipse has made the sphericity of the earth a matter of direct observation, and per the work of Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC, the value of the circumference has been known to be at a level close to the modern one, based on simple calculations on direct observations on differences in shadows at the same time at two points on roughly a N-S axis and a known distance apart -- summer solstice, noon. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Re WD400: This objector is striving manfully to pull the thread off topic through a red herring over methodological naturalism and the talking point that it is "only" a mere methodological constraint. It ain't. Let's just correct for record and refuse to continue off on the tangent until WD400 actually addresses the substance on the merits in light of inconvenient facts he and the like will be wont to try to pointedly ignore while they spin their web of talking points. Lewontin let the cat out of the bag in his NYRB review article, in 1997:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. {Billions and billions of demons, NYRB Jan 1997. If you imagine that the above has been "quote mined" kindly read the fuller extract and notes here on, noting the onward link to the original article.]
If you click the given link and read on down, you will see that this is no idiosyncratic notion held by one man, but reflects a strong pattern, including the US based National Academy of Science and national Science Teachers Association Board. MN is an ideologically loaded, worldview level imposition and straight-jacket on science that begs BIG questions. It is little less than metaphysical, a priori evolutionary materialism smuggled in the back door and set up as a censor over science. Thus, the telling force of Philip Johnson's retort in First Things in November that same year:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Nope, as Newton plainly stated in his general scholium to Principia, God would be a God of the order of the world, so also Boyle and Kepler et al saw themselves as thinking God's creative and sustaining ordering and providential thoughts after him in order to better steward the world under Him, and as we may add . . . echoing C S Lewis, that the God who made and sustains the world by his word of power may have good reason to occasionally go beyond the usual course of nature, has no practical import for studies of that usual course. And, such a usual course marks the difference between a chaos and a cosmos -- an ordered system of reality. So the theism/supernatural implies chaos is a strawman caricature set up and pummelled, having been led away to by a red herring. As, so sadly, usual. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

RB:
“The earth is round” is a scientific model, not a “fact on the ground.”
Barry:
Sigh. Really Bill?
Here are examples of actual sensory observations pertaining to a round earth that may be classified as falling into your epistemic "category 1": - When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower-lying ground and the mast of a boat before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs. - The sun is lower in the sky as you travel away from the tropics. For example, when traveling northward, stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky, whereas other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky. - The length of daylight varies more between summer and winter the farther you are from the equator. - The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. - The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication. - When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even farther (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south. - It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started. "The earth is a sphere" was for millennia a model that both accounted for and was progressively affirmed by those observations (which are presented in chronological order of their observation - thanks to Wikipedia). Yet during those millennia "the earth is a sphere" was never given directly to anyone's senses. That model for millennia exemplified your epistemic category 2, and could be (and was) doubted in the way that direct observations cannot. Of course, observational confirmation of that that model progressed to the point that some of us, since 1961, have directly observed the sphericity of the earth, observations that became possible in part due to the very success of the model, in conjunction with other successful models (e.g. of gravitation, orbital mechanics, etc.) These models had attained the clearest demonstration of "practical" and "reasonable" certainty of all: people bet their lives on them. So here we have observational and predictive confirmation of a theory progressing to the point that the model could be judged as certainly correct in any "practical" or "reasonable" sense of certainty - in the process of which your categorical distinction dissolved completely as the core insights of the model progressed to become both theory and fact.Reciprocating Bill_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

TB (Attn: RB): Actually, in C4 BC, Aristotle pointed out that the shadow the earth casts on the Moon in a Lunar eclipse is always a circular one. There is exactly one solid shape that has this property [and yes, up to the refinements of a Taylor series equivalent of refinements on the lumps and bumps]. By the 200's Eratosthenes, Librarian in Alexandria, worked out from shadows cast in Alex and Syene [on the Tropic of Cancer, where Aswan Dam now sits] had calculated, apparently to within 10% of the modern value for circumference, some 40,000 km. Which is no accident, that is the intended figure on which the metre was originally defined. By the high Middle Ages, there was a famous "cartoon" that I call blue and brown cloak, where the characters go on a walk to the antipodes and meet face to face there, having effectively walked half way around the earth. So, the sphericity of the Earth was a matter of direct observation, long before the photos shot from space. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Earth is a sphere for everyone except a geodesist who is trying to be very precise.Earth has been photographed from outer space multiple times and has been shown to be spherical.It is not a theory anymore. Why would anyone believe it is a theory and not a fact unless he suspects that all the outer-space photos are Photoshop ?the bystander_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

RB:
“The earth is round” is a scientific model, not a “fact on the ground.”
Sigh. Really Bill? If your religion requires you to say something so preposterous, I guess you have to do it (or, I suppose, you could switch religions).Barry Arrington_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply