*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2019, 03:40:01 PM »
At last, a reasonable response!

First, allow me to correct the specifics of my point on "false model vs. no knowledge". edby's suggestion was that science prefers any model over no model at all. I believe this to be incorrect, because any model would include models that are already known to be wrong. It is superior to say we don't know how something works if the alternative is to propose that it works through fairy magic.

The point on deception is an important one. It is well-known that science is plagued with people trying to advance their own career rather than human knowledge. Some over-reactive journalists will tell you that "most" scientific papers are actually not reproducible, although I'm not sure I'd put that much stock in these reports. Nonetheless, I would say that deliberately falsified research is inferior to no research at all, once again blatantly contradicting edby's claim that any model is better than no model.
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 ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2019, 03:51:56 PM »
I happen to agree with pete on this point I think, some published papers can be falsified and people will do and have done that in order to further their career or get a minute of fame for their findings. However, this is what peer reviewing is for and a lot of scientists are caught out with incorrect findings or data, be it on purpose or not. The point in peer reviewing is to correct any mistakes or false data that someone may have in their findings. As such it is an imperfect system, but it is a system regardless (at which point, I think this is better than nothing). Saying "magic" created something where you do not understand otherwise is obviously inferior to saying you just don't know. With that said you need a model in the first place to be able to realise it is incorrect and thus correct it.

With regards to scientists falsifying data to further their own agenda; with every person that does that there is also a lot of other scientists that will read through and claim bullshit just to get that step up as well. Afterall, who wouldn't want to correct a popular finding? It's pretty messy anyway.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 04:00:50 PM by ChrisTP »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2019, 03:56:11 PM »
edby's suggestion was that science prefers any model over no model at all. I believe this to be incorrect, because any model would include models that are already known to be wrong.
But if the model is known to be wrong, rule 1 kicks in. Prefer more accurate to less accurate. Thales (?) proposed that the world was made of water, trying to show how his proposal had explanatory power. Science at that time (7 century BCE?) preferred that to no model at all. Then better models came along, i.e. better in the sense that they were more accurate, simpler etc.

You have to apply the rules in order. Rule 1: go for the most accurate. Rule 2, if models are equally accurate, choose the simpler. Rule 3, prefer any model given by rules 1 and 2, to no model at all.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 03:57:46 PM by edby »

Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2019, 04:00:42 PM »
Word choice affects how your point is perceived.

But did the science at the time know that  Thales proposal was absolutely wrong or did they just not have the knowledge.

The key point here is that your OP should state that a model based on limited knowledge is preferred over no model, and that models based on deliberate lies should be ignored outright.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2019, 04:01:31 PM »
I would say that deliberately falsified research is inferior to no research at all, once again blatantly contradicting edby's claim that any model is better than no model.
If the data is falsified, then the model is not accurate. It may explain the falsified data, but won't explain data accurate data.

On the meaning of 'accurate data', well there's a whole science of that. Happy to expand.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2019, 04:05:22 PM »
But did the science at the time know that  Thales proposal was absolutely wrong or did they just not have the knowledge.
The key point here is that your OP should state that a model based on limited knowledge is preferred over no model, and that models based on deliberate lies should be ignored outright.
I prefer to eliminate subjective judgments about 'knowledge'. Who knows whether we have knowledge or not.

All we need is a model and a (large-ish) set of accurate data, i.e. observations. The apply a test to see how accurately our model predicts the observations.

I gave an example in another thread on lighthouses. Make accurate measurements of the height of each lighthouse. Make accurate observations of the maximum distance the light can be see from a specified height. Then apply some mathematical model to try and explain these observations.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2019, 07:18:17 PM »
But if the model is known to be wrong, rule 1 kicks in. Prefer more accurate to less accurate.
What is the accuracy of something that doesn't exist?

If the data is falsified, then the model is not accurate. It may explain the falsified data, but won't explain data accurate data.
That doesn't make it preferable to no model. Please focus on addressing what's actually being said. If all you're going to do is strawman me, is there much point to having a conversation? You could be having it with yourself just as well.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 07:19:54 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #47 on: January 09, 2019, 07:41:55 PM »
But if the model is known to be wrong, rule 1 kicks in. Prefer more accurate to less accurate.
What is the accuracy of something that doesn't exist?
Zero.
Quote
If the data is falsified, then the model is not accurate. It may explain the falsified data, but won't explain data accurate data.
That doesn't make it preferable to no model.
My point was, if the data is falsified, then the model is a false model, indeed not a model at all. So it is no model. To count as being a model at all, it must have some (perhaps statistically measured) success at explaining observations.

I’m a long way from understanding your underlying point, Pete. Clearly you don’t like the idea that Science prefers some model (a genuine model) to nothing at all. But that’s a fact. With no model, you merely have a claim. Is your worry that FE consists mostly of claims, with no underlying explanatory model? But that’s a fact. Take ‘bendy light’. FE has no underlying predictive model with mathematical functions to explain light bending in different circumstances. Unlike Science, which can explain pretty precisely, e.g. under what conditions light is refracted. I assume you did basic school physics?

Or take gravitational acceleration. Science both measures this well, and explains it well. FE has no theory which explains the observed differences at different latitudes and heights. (You will immediately bring in ‘celestial gravitation’. Very well: show me the mathematical model that underlies it).

Everything in Science is explanation, mere claims amount to nothing. That idea goes right back to Thales.

[EDIT]
I would say that deliberately falsified research is inferior to no research at all, once again blatantly contradicting edby's claim that any model is better than no model.

Falsified research is not research, for the same reason that a fake diamond is not a diamond.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 07:47:50 PM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #48 on: January 09, 2019, 07:59:09 PM »
What is the accuracy of something that doesn't exist?
Zero.
Okay, then why would you prefer a model with zero accuracy over no model? Sounds like they're equal by rule 1.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 01:33:44 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #49 on: January 19, 2019, 12:42:27 PM »
The disagreement is clearly over whether we should prefer some model to no model. Here are three threads where three different models are discussed, and where there is no FE predictive model. In each case, science prefers the predictive model.

Rowbotham Lighthouse experiment This shows that the simple model d = sqrt(7h)/2 predicts with reasonable accuracy the distance a lighthouse will be visible across water. I.e. reasonably accurate in the sense that there is a high correlation between prediction and observation. Pete made a series of objections on the grounds that correlation does not imply causation. Well perhaps, but Science is simply trying to make accurate predictions here, where ‘accuracy’ is defined in terms of statistical correlation. Er, how else would we define accuracy?

FE has no model whatsover to predict these observations. FE makes various claims about refraction, perspective or whatsoever, but claims are not predictions. There is no FE model that I know of which uses perspective to predict, with high statistical accuracy, the distance at which we can see a lighthouse.

Flight times and distance shows that the simple Haversine model roughly predicts how long a flight will take, given the latitude and longitude of the airport. No great accuracy is to be expected, given time on the runway, delays to schedule etc. But there is a strong correlation, hence a strong prediction, nevertheless.

The usual FE maps, by contrast, show massive errors in calculation. There are two FE objections (1) jet streams (2) that there is no FE map. In reply, (1) there is no FE jet stream model, so Science rejects the jet stream hypothesis until it sees an accurate model, and (2) the admission of no map is the admission of no model, QED.

None of this means that we must rigorously reject any FE claim or hypothesis. Merely, science fails to consider such claims or hypotheses until it sees a model that is more accurate, or at least as accurate but simpler. Nothing so far.

Free Air Correction This shows how the simple Newtonian gravitational model predicts observed free fall acceleration at different heights. Here, the measuring instruments are unbelievably accurate, and the statistical correlation is very high. So Science prefers that model.

FE hypothesises that the effect is caused by ‘Universal Acceleration’. Fine, nice to have a competing hypothesis, however there is no model. Moreover, and much worse, any such model is bound to be more complex than the Newtonian one, because it posits two effects on acceleration, rather than one, namely UA and something like standard gravitational acceleration. Yet the UA model exists precisely to avoid any standard gravitational model. Law of Parsimony requires that we reject any such model.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2019, 01:34:51 PM »
Here are three threads where three different models are discussed, and where there is no FE predictive model. In each case, science prefers the predictive model.
Once again, you attempt to shift the subject. Please get back to me when you're ready to defend or amend your thesis that a known false model (of value 0, per your own claim) is preferable to no model (of value 0, per your own claim).
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 01:40:04 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #51 on: January 19, 2019, 02:03:43 PM »
Here are three threads where three different models are discussed, and where there is no FE predictive model. In each case, science prefers the predictive model.
Once again, you attempt to shift the subject. Please get back to me when you're ready to defend or amend your thesis that a known false model (of value 0, per your own claim) is preferable to no model (of value 0, per your own claim).
I believe I said above that a 'known false model' is not a model at all.  I used the phrase 'false diamond' to illustrate this, no?

I believe you are also 'shifting the subject', I think you mean ground shifting. Not at all. My central claim is that Science prefers some model to no model (including a 'false model'), and I gave 3 examples clearly demonstrating why Science prefers a model.

[EDIT] Your unwillingness to discuss cases such as these are noted. Clearly you are itching, nay bursting, to consign this thread to the nether regions. But as I said before, I have a record of its existence. The whole thread reveals much about the FE mentality.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:12:55 PM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2019, 02:16:58 PM »
I believe I said above that a 'known false model' is not a model at all.
And yet you defend known false models in your diatribes. This is a contradiction that you'll have to resolve.

I believe you are also 'shifting the subject', I think you mean ground shifting.
I once again refer you to my previous post on meaningless semantics. Instead of mocking my use of English a second language, try addressing the issues that you've created for yourself.

My central claim is that Science prefers some model to no model (including a 'false model')
Thank you for retracting one of your faulty points, even if you refuse to acknowledge that that's what you're doing. Only a handful to go.

I gave 3 examples clearly demonstrating why Science prefers a model.
And at least one of them is a model we know to be false - so now you've introduced yet another contradiction into the conversation. Your previous examples (which I note you have now quietly abandoned) focused on debates which were either unresolved or lost by your side. Your argument is flimsy because it relies on you listing examples and claiming victory, even if your own examples speak against you.

But as I said before, I have a record of its existence. The whole thread reveals much about the FE mentality.
I don't see why you'd think I care. The very reason we move threads that break the debating standards to the lower fora is so that a record of them remains easily accessible. And the fact that you keep asking me to move the thread after I told you I have no intention of doing so is revealing, too ;)

This is almost as good as when you've claimed that an academia.edu profile makes you an academic.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:22:14 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #53 on: January 19, 2019, 02:22:12 PM »
Please stop derailing this thread. To get back on topic.
I believe I said above that a 'known false model' is not a model at all.
And yet you defend known false models in your diatribes. This is a contradiction that you'll have to resolve.
Which 'false model' am I defending?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2019, 02:25:49 PM »
Please stop derailing this thread.
Demanding that you back up (or retract, which you thankfully started doing) your ridiculous assertions is not derailment - if you didn't want to discuss them, you had the option of not creating a discussion thread for them. I'm sorry you dislike accountability, but you're just going to have to deal with it. Your backlog is growing.

Which false model am I defending?
Classical mechanics and General Relativity, to name a couple.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:27:24 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #55 on: January 19, 2019, 02:25:54 PM »
This is almost as good as when you've claimed that an academia.edu profile makes you an academic.
Can you also stop derailing the thread with ad hominem remarks such as these. I believe I said that academia.edu profile is a sort of Facebook for academics. I have hundreds of academic friends and colleagues who use the site. Thousands of other academics use it. It is merely a place for keeping working papers and records of publications, that's all.

My academic reputation and status depends entirely on my peer-reviewed work. End of.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2019, 02:27:21 PM »
Which false model am I defending?
Classical mechanics and General Relativity, to name a couple.
Oh right. These models have great predictive power. That is what makes them a model, as I have asserted many times. Your claim that they are 'false' amounts to the claim that they have little or no predictive power. Please demonstrate this.

[EDIT]I don't believe I have ever mentioned General Relativity by the way. I have defended the predictive power of Classical mechanics a few times, see e.g. my post on Free Air Correction. Which part of this are you challenging?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2019, 02:28:08 PM »
Can you also stop derailing the thread with ad hominem remarks such as these.
Describing your past actions is not an ad hominem.

Your claim that they are 'false' amounts to the claim that they have little or no predictive power
No, it does not. We return to my first reply to this thread.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:30:12 PM by Pete Svarrior »
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 #58 on: January 19, 2019, 02:34:25 PM »
Your claim that they are 'false' amounts to the claim that they have little or no predictive power
No, it does not. We return to my first reply to this thread.
Oh right, where you made the bizarre claim that in e.g. choosing between models A, B and C, our selection criterion should be whether the model is ‘true’ or not. That is so absurd it deserves hardly any comment. (A criterion is a form of observable and verifiable benchmark. Unfortunately theories do not come with the label ‘true’ or ‘false’ attached to them).

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Models vs patterns
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2019, 02:38:06 PM »
That is so absurd it deserves hardly any comment.
Very mature. Let's see if we can get you to realise your confusion.

Of course, theories do not come with a truth value allocated to them - but if we know that a model fits some observations but does not fit others, then we know that what's modelled cannot be the case in reality. This is where we disagree. I propose that a model which we know is broken should not be considered more valuable than the absence of a model.
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*