Testing Between Random & Non Random Processes

in article [email hidden], John Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 12/15/03 9:39 AM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good company because most Profs and PhD's
cannot understand!) that a general explanation that is "so good" that no observation can be
proposed that can refute it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that idea being a valid
proposition of _science_.

Quoted message said:

GH:- I agree entirely with this statement. Science is a structured endeavor to approach and
understanding of physical Truth, and once an aspect of Truth is "known" (unopposed by alternative
models) there is no more that science has to offer. This is why scientists should embrace our
uncertainties. To prematurely claim that an aspect of Truth is known is to interfere with process
of science. On the other hand, it is a waste of time for scientists to seek false assumptions
just to maintain the façade that there is something for science to do. Scientists should be
prepared to accept an understanding of reality, which should inform the kinds of assumptions we
are willing to make in models of poorly understood phenomena, contingent on the conceptualization
of plausible alternatives.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Does your agreement now mean that you agree that only refutable ideas can be empirically
separated from each other so that non refutable ideas can never be scientific views until they
become refutable as Popper argued?

GH:- No.

JE:- You are on record as suggesting science would be better off if it was free from the tyranny
refutability.

You recently suggested that a random process can validly form either a random or non random
pattern. Normally, a random process is restricted by definition, to only forming a random pattern.

The concept of a "random process" is not normally a part of the scientific process at all.

Quoted message said:

Can you not see that if science allowed your revision then it becomes impossible to empirically
discriminate between a random and non random process?

As I have posted on many occasions in sbe, you must carefully define what you mean by "random
process" before any coherent statements can be made them. I know what I mean by this term, and I
have posted my definition to you.

Under my definition of "random process", which in not a term that I would choose to use at all, it
is not impossible to discriminate between random and non-random processes. It is the difference
between systematic and stochastic effects.

Quoted message said:

If both processes can form both patterns then either process can always be assumed as causative to
that pattern. Thus the testable difference between these most basic of all propositions within the
sciences becomes impossible. Therefore, allowing both processes to produce both patterns within
science is absurd.

It is not up to us to allow it one way or the other. Science is about understanding nature, not
imposing our beliefs or limitations on it.

Note that making assumptions and testing propositions are different things, and not mutually
exclusive.

Quoted message said:

I have previously explained that you could reverse the normal epistemological polarity. You could
assume that a random process causes both a random and non random pattern but a non random process
is now restricted to causing just a non random pattern. Now it becomes possible to test between
the process suppositions. However, now, a non random process cannot be verified only a random
process, can! Is this what you want?

No; I don't want such confusion. Instead, I want to improve our understanding of "how nature works"
(the title of a very influential book on complex systems).

Cheers,

Guy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> JE:- Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good company because most Profs and PhD's
> cannot understand!) that a general explanation that is "so good" that no observation can be
> proposed that can refute it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that idea being a valid
> proposition of _science_.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- I agree entirely with this statement. Science is a structured endeavor

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

approach and understanding of physical Truth, and once an aspect of

Truth is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"known" (unopposed by alternative models) there is no more that science

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to offer. This is why scientists should embrace our uncertainties. To prematurely claim that an
aspect of Truth is known is to interfere with process of science. On the other hand, it is a
waste of time for

scientists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to seek false assumptions just to maintain the façade that there is something for science to do.
Scientists should be prepared to accept an understanding of reality, which should inform the
kinds of assumptions

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are willing to make in models of poorly understood phenomena, contingent

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the conceptualization of plausible alternatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Does your agreement now mean that you agree that only refutable ideas can be empirically
separated from each other so that non refutable ideas can never be scientific views until they
become refutable as Popper argued?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- No.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Then just verification is enough to empirically separate ideas?

GH:- I don't think that I could possibly answer this question at this point in a way that would
communicate to you my position accurately because your conceptual framework seems to be so different
from mine on these issues.

JE:- Then your first statement "I agree entirely with this statement" was just meaningless politics?

The question is simple to understand and requires a simple answer. Either both verification and
refutation are required or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Please answer the question.

Quoted message said:

snip<

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]