*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2019, 01:52:45 PM »
Again, and as stated above, my claim is not whether the scientific method is correct, but rather, 'this is the mainstream scientific view, widely held etc'. You are deeply confused.
I know what your claim is, and your repeated attempts at strawmanning me are not helping your case.

We have already established that your statements, made in the OP and quoted in my first response, are false. The remainder of your post collapses due to that. Please address this.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2019, 01:52:56 PM »
Ah! You're finally budging! We moved down from "this is how it works" to "this has considerable support". Perhaps soon you'll start addressing the actual issue.
No, read the OP. I said "Of course there may be other scoring systems. Perhaps someone would like to suggest one that favours flat earth models?"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2019, 01:54:17 PM »
No, read the OP. I said "Of course there may be other scoring systems. Perhaps someone would like to suggest one that favours flat earth models?"
The fact that I didn't propose an alternative system does not preclude me from pointing out that your description of your own system is so critically flawed that it collapses unto itself. I can ask you to fix your claim without making a counter-proposal, which is what I'm doing.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2019, 01:54:22 PM »
We have already established that your statements, made in the OP and quoted in my first response, are false. The remainder of your post collapses due to that. Please address this.

OK let's change 'But science itself does not measure success in that way. First, science requires an explanatory model. And it rates models in the following way. (1) Prefer a more accurate model to a less accurate one. (2) Given models of roughly equal accuracy, prefer the simpler model to the more complex one. (3) Prefer any model to no model at all.'

"But mainstream science itself does not measure success in that way. First, mainstream science requires an explanatory model. And it rates models in the following way. (1) Prefer a more accurate model to a less accurate one. (2) Given models of roughly equal accuracy, prefer the simpler model to the more complex one. (3) Prefer any model to no model at all."

Does that help?

[edit] I added a second 'mainstream' to make it clear.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 01:56:08 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2019, 01:55:28 PM »
No, read the OP. I said "Of course there may be other scoring systems. Perhaps someone would like to suggest one that favours flat earth models?"
The fact that I didn't propose an alternative system does not preclude me from pointing out that your description of your own system is so critically flawed that it collapses unto itself. I can ask you to fix your claim without making a counter-proposal, which is what I'm doing.
Nope. Mainstream science prefers accuracy to lack of it, and if both models are accurate, then choose simplicity. That's perfectly correct.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2019, 01:57:10 PM »
Does that help?
It does not. (3) continues to be false, and the very example you provided in the OP (the use of astronomical patterns, which necessarily includes the Saros Cycle) contradicts your core premise. Adding a weak qualifier won't resolve this.

Nope. Mainstream science prefers accuracy to lack of it, and if both models are accurate, then choose simplicity. That's perfectly correct.
Mainstream science does not prefer an incorrect prediction to the lack of a prediction. I can't believe that I'm explaining this to an adult, let alone one that previously tried to falsely claim academic credentials.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2019, 02:02:42 PM »
Does that help?
It does not. (3) continues to be false, and the very example you provided in the OP (the use of astronomical patterns, which necessarily includes the Saros Cycle) contradicts your core premise. Adding a weak qualifier won't resolve this.
How does the example contradict my core premiss?

Quote
Nope. Mainstream science prefers accuracy to lack of it, and if both models are accurate, then choose simplicity. That's perfectly correct.
Mainstream science does not prefer an incorrect prediction to the lack of a prediction. I can't believe that I'm explaining this to an adult, let alone one that previously tried to falsely claim academic credentials.

If mainstream science finds the prediction incorrect, then it looks for a better model.

Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2019, 02:07:25 PM »
We have already established that your statements, made in the OP and quoted in my first response, are false. The remainder of your post collapses due to that. Please address this.
First, science requires an explanatory model.
Errr, not hardly...

Plenty of instances of scientists just shitposting articles of speculation and enjoying the congratulatory attaboys from similar like-minded numbskulls...
"But mainstream science itself does not measure success in that way. First, mainstream science requires an explanatory model.
The second coat of paint does nothing to brighten the room...

Perhaps you should change colors instead, or perhaps even consult an interior decorator.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2019, 02:08:55 PM »
How does the example contradict my core premiss?
I refer you to the many discussions we've had before on this forum, many of which you participated in and are evidently familiar with.

If mainstream science finds the prediction incorrect, then it looks for a better model.
Irrelevant.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2019, 02:26:59 PM »
Newton’s formulation of the principle is also worth consideration.
Quote
Rule 1 No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena.
As the philosophers say: Nature does nothing in vain, and more causes are in vain when fewer will suffice. For Nature is simple and does not indulge in the luxury of superfluous causes.

Rule 2 Therefore, the causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same.

Rule 3 Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted [i.e., qualities that cannot be increased and diminished] and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally.
For the qualities of bodies can be known only through experiments; and therefore qualities that square with experiments universally are to be regarded as universal qualities… Certainly ideal fancies ought not to be fabricated recklessly against the evidence of experiments, nor should we depart from the analogy of nature, since nature is always simple and ever consonant with itself…

Rule 4 In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction may not be nullified by hypotheses. (Newton, I. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy; A New Translation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman. Berkeley: University of California Press, p794-796)

[EDIT] Rule 1 ("more causes are in vain when fewer will suffice") looks like a direct quote from William of Ockham. "Et pro istis est ratio ista quia 'frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora'".
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 02:30:04 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2019, 02:42:22 PM »
Quote
Aristotle Posterior Analytics 86a32 That affirmative demonstration excels negative may be shown as follows. (1) We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses-in short from fewer premisses; for, given that all these are equally well known, where they are fewer knowledge will be more speedily acquired, and that is a desideratum.

Quote
Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168) ‘We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.’ Quoted in James Franklin, The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Chap 9. p. 241.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2019, 02:53:42 PM »
Quote
Einstein: “our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realisation of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas” (Einstein, A. 1954. Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown, p274).

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2019, 03:06:14 PM »
I fail to see how spamming quotes is going to progress your attempts at resolving the contradictions in the OP.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2019, 03:06:59 PM »
I fail to see how spamming quotes is going to progress your attempts at resolving the contradictions in the OP.
You asked for citations.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2019, 03:07:57 PM »
You asked for citations.
I did not, and I explicitly clarified that the last time you made this error.

Citation requested
I didn't request a citation. I asked you to resolve the multiple contradictions in your statements.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2019, 03:11:47 PM »
I didn't request a citation. I asked you to resolve the multiple contradictions in your statements.

One thing at a time. Your quote below refers to "unqualified and unjustified statements". I took this to mean my statements about the methods mainstream scientists (Newton etc) to choose between models.

If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?

You also asked me to '[back] up your claims'. I assumed you meant citation. If not, what did you mean?

Well as you are challenging one of the main views on scientific method
Absolutely not. You are the one making the claim of superiority with unqualified and unjustified statements. We won't be having a "Prove me wrong" discussion here. Start backing up your claims.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2019, 03:14:04 PM »
If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
I refer you to my first response in this thread.

You also asked me to '[back] up your claims'. I assumed you meant citation.
A citation does not resolve a logical contradiction. Also, saying that others agree with you does not establish truth.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2019, 03:18:09 PM »
Also, saying that others agree with you does not establish truth.
You are so confused that there is not point in continuing this discussion. By all means consign to some other forum. We know the thread exists, and I have copied it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2019, 03:19:51 PM »
You are so confused that there is not point in continuing this discussion.
No, you simply misunderstood my first comment, and instead of taking a step back to think about the fact that you've contradicted yourself, you double down on quoting Einstein.

It's a combination of a couple of simple mistakes and logical fallacies. Not too difficult to unravel. But one must first actually want to improve.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2019, 03:24:14 PM »
Pete, can you clarify what the logical contradiction is? I believe you were the one to say it is a logical contradiction by interjecting your opinion that a false model is not superior to no model. And I believe it is a false equivalency to say that a false model is a deception.  A false model can be a deception, but a false model can also be based on lack of knowledge. Once that knowledge is gained, then the false model is either corrected or thrown out and replaced by a new one, which happens all the time in science. I am of the opinion that the word false in the OP is meant to mean an incorrect one, not meaning false as in a lie. AKA faulty, lack of data, or bad data, etc.

Can you also clarify what you mean by deception? Are you indicating nefarious groups? Or are you talking about cherry picking data or fudging numbers, or what?