U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2018, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
The type of argument Tyson is making in the video above is what is known as the coherentist theory of truth.
I don't hear Neil making any such argument in that video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
He's using it to smokescreen the fact that his broader position is little more than a very simple consensus fallacy.
Since he is not using the argument you are tying to accuse him of...there is no smokescreen; additionally I'm not sure what consensus fallacy your referring to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2018, 11:46 AM
 
1,204 posts, read 715,264 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I don't hear Neil making any such argument in that video.
Since he is not using the argument you are tying to accuse him of...there is no smokescreen; additionally I'm not sure what consensus fallacy your referring to?
His statement beginning at 0:56 in the video is a textbook example of the coherence theory of truth.

Quote:
"An emergent scientific truth, for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true whether or not you believe in it, it requires more than one scientific paper. It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction. All pointing to the same consequences."
Coherence theory of truth (coherentism):
- Objective truth is based purely upon how well knowledge within a system or set of knowledge 'coheres' with other knowledge.
- The more coherent the system, the more objectively true its constituent knowledge.

Correspondence theory of truth:
- Objective truth is based purely upon how well knowledge is supported by sound evidence and arguments.
- Truth value reduces to foundational axioms of logic and empirical observation.

Under the coherence theory it is impossible for a single scientific study to refute a broader field of theoretical knowledge, irrespective of how brilliant, visionary or sound its evidence and arguments. This contradicts much of the history of science.

That's why it's a poor argument from Tyson. The proper way to argue against cherry picking is to advocate careful appraisal of individual studies on a case-by-case basis. Instead, he resorts to clumsy and lazy discourses on epistemology.

Last edited by Hightower72; 03-13-2018 at 12:45 PM.. Reason: simplified language
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
This is his statement beginning at 0:56 in the video.

This is a textbook example of the coherence theory of truth, irrespective of whether he's heard and studied the term or not.
No it's not.

I think you need to read up on the Criticisms of Coherence Theories of Truth.

While you are at it read up on the New Objections to Coherentism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
The coherence theory reduces the truth of a proposition purely to how well it coheres with other propositions within a system or set of knowledge. In contrast, under the correspondence theory, a proposition is considered to have truth value to the extent that it is supported objectively by sound arguments. Arguments in turn are predicated on axiological principles: logic and empirical evidence.
LOL every single objective truth we have today on how the Universe works has been repeatedly confirmed through discovery, observation and experimentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
That's why it's a poor argument from Tyson.
It's not even remotely close to being a poor argument from Neil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
Instead of advocating careful critical appraisal of individual studies, which is the type of systematic review a competent scientist would recommend, he resorts to clumsy demonstration of epistemology.
I don't think you understand what the process of peer review is. Neil states it correctly: "It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction. All pointing to the same consequences." Yep that's how a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment becomes a Scientific Theory...i.e. an emergent objective scientific truth.

Now back to my question: What consensus fallacy your referring to?

Keep in mind this thread is about Climate Change.

Last edited by Matadora; 03-13-2018 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
His statement beginning at 0:56 in the video is a textbook example of the coherence theory of truth.

Coherence theory of truth (coherentism):
- Objective truth is based purely upon how well knowledge within a system or set of knowledge 'coheres' with other knowledge.
- The more coherent the system, the more objectively true its constituent knowledge.

Correspondence theory of truth:
- Objective truth is based purely upon how well knowledge is supported by sound evidence and arguments.
- Truth value reduces to foundational axioms of logic and empirical observation.
So I suppose all of the current Scientific Theories are simply rubbish according to your argument/beliefs?

Climate change data is simple to understand. It does not take a PhD in physics to understand measurements and the ability to tie it to what we are observing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 01:10 PM
 
1,204 posts, read 715,264 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
No it's not.

I think you need to read up on the Criticisms of Coherence Theories of Truth.

While you are at it read up on the New Objections to Coherentism.
LOL every single objective truth we have today on how the Universe works has been repeatedly confirmed through discovery, observation and experimentation.
It's not even remotely close to being a poor argument from Neil.
I don't think you understand what the process of peer review is. Neil states it correctly: "It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction. All pointing to the same consequences." Yep that's how a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment becomes a Scientific Theory...i.e. an emergent objective scientific truth.

Now back to my question: What consensus fallacy your referring to?

Keep in mind this thread is about Climate Change.
Careful here. It's Tyson making the coherentist claim. If you link an article criticizing coherentism, you're supporting my argument not his. I suspect you've probably already realized this by now though.

There's an important difference between the following two statements:

1. "A scientific hypothesis that is verified by observation is more likely to have predictive value than one that doesn't."
2. "A scientific truth, by definition, is based exclusively upon a consensus of scientific experimental data."

The first is a basic tenet of the empirical method. The second is a philosophical claim about the nature of objective truth that can be disproven by any basic reading of history. They are fundamentally different propositions. Neither are anything to do with peer review.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360
Sigh...it's only you who is applying your beliefs to what Neil is stating. Since I don't agree with you I am not supporting any such claims against Neil.

The strongest scientific evidence is compiled into a consensus, which we take as our empirical truth. Neil is correct when he stated:

"An emergent scientific truth, for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true whether or not you believe in it, it requires more than one scientific paper. It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction. All pointing to the same consequences".

Thank goodness for science discoveries leading to empirical truths...if not for them we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:02 PM
 
1,204 posts, read 715,264 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Sigh...it's only you who is applying your beliefs to what Neil is stating. Since I don't agree with you I am not supporting any such claims against Neil.

The strongest scientific evidence is compiled into a consensus, which we take as our empirical truth. Neil is correct when he stated:

"An emergent scientific truth, for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true whether or not you believe in it, it requires more than one scientific paper. It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction. All pointing to the same consequences".

Thank goodness for science discoveries leading to empirical truths...if not for them we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
If you think that Tyson is not talking about coherentism then you need to explain why that's the case, referring to both his terminology and a standardized definition of coherentism. All the references you've linked so far do nothing but agree with what I've said.

We've already gone over the rest of your points above. Tyson is claiming that scientific truth is synonymous with consensus. That's a philosophical claim that is radically different to the basic scientific principle that theories are strengthened by verification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
So I suppose all of the current Scientific Theories are simply rubbish according to your argument/beliefs?
You need to be more careful with your contrapositives:

P: "Scientific consensus is the only index of scientific truth"
Q: "Scientific consensus is always an index of scientific untruth"

P being false doesn't mean that Q is true. In this case it means there are better measures of objective truth than consensus alone.

Coherentism being wrong doesn't mean that scientific consensus is a contrarian indicator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360
See folks why Science and Philosophy divorced?

Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.

At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.

Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.

What knowledge about Climate Change and Climate Change data has philosophy brought to us? None that I can think of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:48 PM
 
1,204 posts, read 715,264 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
See folks why Science and Philosophy divorced?

Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.

At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.

Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.

What knowledge about Climate Change and Climate Change data has philosophy brought to us? None that I can think of.
I had fun reading this, but an anti-philosophy rant is completely out of place here. It doesn't follow from or refute anything I've said. It doesn't support your own arguments. If it was meant to make you look knowledgeable, it doesn't even do that (most of it is wrong).

What you've actually done is pretty impressive in its own way. You've deflected away from the topic, written mostly incoherent nonsense and disparaged Neil deGrasse Tyson, who you were meant to be defending, all within the space of a single post.

Remember, the point of discussion is that scientists are only equipped to act as authorities on science, not philosophy.

Last edited by Hightower72; 03-13-2018 at 04:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,067 posts, read 4,157,616 times
Reputation: 6360
Neil is discussing science...not philosophy.

Anyway Neil is correct in everything he stated about Climate deniers inability to understand what empirical truths are and how they are established.

I suggest you take your anti-science rant to the Philosophy forum. This is the Science forum not the Anti-Science forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top