Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5526202" data-attributes="member: 18280">Predict =/= confirm.We cannot know that a prediction will be true.  We can only know that a past prediction was true.  We believe that we can accurately predict the next solar eclipse, when we'll have full moon again, or how long will last the fall of a ball of lead from 10 feet, but we do not know until the event has become a past event.No.....deciding that those sentences are not true is, in point of fact, magical thinking.  It is believing that your model, and/or your underlying assumptions, are more "true" than other models and/or underlying assumptions that produce the same results.4 = 4.2 + 2 = 4.1 + 3 = 4.(-8) + 4 = 4./-4/ = 4.(2 + 8) - 6 = 4.[(2 x 10) + 17] - 33 = 4.All of those statements are true, and, if you have only "I used a formula to derive 4" as evidence, all are equally likely to be true.  Likewise, there is no rational method of differentiating between models that equally match the observed phenomena, except in terms of utility.  From a rational standpoint, Occam's Razor should have read, "All else being equal, use the model that is less complex (i.e., easier to use)."  The less complex model is not necessarily more reflective of reality, however.That we do, in fact, give preferential belief to some particular model  -- regardless of what that model is (again, so long as both are equally consistent in terms of their predictions meshing with observation) -- is entirely a matter of faith.  This is equally true whether I choose to believe in a model with 11 dimensions, superstrings, or flying spaghetti monsters.  Unless there is a way to actually test a difference in the relationship between prediction and observation, so that one model is shown to clearly be closer to observed reality, the models are rationally co-equal.CAVEAT ONE:  If a model is based upon a logical or mathematical error, the model can be demonstrated to be faulty on that basis.CAVEAT TWO:  The foregoing is based upon the principle that basic assumptions cannot be rationally proven, and therefore can only be tested on the basis of examination of the outcomes of those assumptions (i.e., how what follows from a base assumption is in accord with, or opposed to, actual observation).NOTE:  It is rational to say, "I see no reason to believe in 11 dimensions."  It is not rational to then add, "therefore, those 11 dimensions do not exist".Once you step beyond acceptance of the model as a working hypothesis, and begin to believe in the model as reality, you are stepping into the land of magical thinking.  No thank you.As Hume points out, one does not need to have knowledge to have faith in one's model.  One should simply not mistake that faith for knowledge!RC</blockquote>

Verification