![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Neglect. And TRU FAX.
Mar. 29th, 2011 08:40 pmI have neglected this journal. Maybe I should post here more.
So here's an x-post from a different journal.
---
So, I'm posting this for people I know have at least a somewhat scientific/mathematics background, because I myself am not formally educated (although I don't think my self-education is all that shabby, riddled with holes as it is) because I found this conversation with Random McGee interesting, but throughout the exchange I was having a very difficult time wording my responses. The English language (and any other language, really) is full of nuance, and hitting just the right balance to describe something mathematical or scientific is sometimes very hard.
I got the feeling throughout the entire conversation that we were not actually in (much) disagreement, so much as we used different words to represent the same things, and McGee is letting "common sense" dictate the hierarchy of facts, theories, laws and hypotheses (he states flatly that he "disagrees" with the actual hierarchy...to which I can't say much, other than, "oh, well").
What I'm wondering here is whether my idea of the hierarchy is correct. I know the order, and I think I know the reasons for it, but I'm not sure. I'm perfectly aware that contradictory evidence falsifies a theory, so from the standpoint of "my facts can beat up your theory," I concede it's more likely than not, given the facts actually have anything to do with said theory and contradict existing evidence, that facts can be "stronger" than theories. But facts (observations) don't do anything, in and of themselves, so they have no real power. And it's hard to come up with a metaphor, or even an example, outside of...something mathematical I don't know how to write, that explains this. I understand, but I can't explain, which makes me wonder how well I actually do understand. I feel like I do comprehend the idea, I just have managed to do so without words or numbers. Yes, theory holds far more power than facts (observations, evidence) alone, due to its potential for practical application as well as its potential to reveal things that are unobservable. But what is an appropriate analogy so I can explain this to someone who hasn't yet wrapped their head around it?
Where are the numbers behind the hierarchy? I understand it logically; but maybe I don't understand it intimately.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2178250/#cid:17709537
(Please do not go to this page to argue with McGee. I'm not calling on anyone to dogpile him. If anything, I'm asking for someone to correct my wording, because I feel that I'm mis-communicating. I suspect that even if I was not, McGee would dig in his heels, but that's not the point.)
So here's an x-post from a different journal.
---
So, I'm posting this for people I know have at least a somewhat scientific/mathematics background, because I myself am not formally educated (although I don't think my self-education is all that shabby, riddled with holes as it is) because I found this conversation with Random McGee interesting, but throughout the exchange I was having a very difficult time wording my responses. The English language (and any other language, really) is full of nuance, and hitting just the right balance to describe something mathematical or scientific is sometimes very hard.
I got the feeling throughout the entire conversation that we were not actually in (much) disagreement, so much as we used different words to represent the same things, and McGee is letting "common sense" dictate the hierarchy of facts, theories, laws and hypotheses (he states flatly that he "disagrees" with the actual hierarchy...to which I can't say much, other than, "oh, well").
What I'm wondering here is whether my idea of the hierarchy is correct. I know the order, and I think I know the reasons for it, but I'm not sure. I'm perfectly aware that contradictory evidence falsifies a theory, so from the standpoint of "my facts can beat up your theory," I concede it's more likely than not, given the facts actually have anything to do with said theory and contradict existing evidence, that facts can be "stronger" than theories. But facts (observations) don't do anything, in and of themselves, so they have no real power. And it's hard to come up with a metaphor, or even an example, outside of...something mathematical I don't know how to write, that explains this. I understand, but I can't explain, which makes me wonder how well I actually do understand. I feel like I do comprehend the idea, I just have managed to do so without words or numbers. Yes, theory holds far more power than facts (observations, evidence) alone, due to its potential for practical application as well as its potential to reveal things that are unobservable. But what is an appropriate analogy so I can explain this to someone who hasn't yet wrapped their head around it?
Where are the numbers behind the hierarchy? I understand it logically; but maybe I don't understand it intimately.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2178250/#cid:17709537
(Please do not go to this page to argue with McGee. I'm not calling on anyone to dogpile him. If anything, I'm asking for someone to correct my wording, because I feel that I'm mis-communicating. I suspect that even if I was not, McGee would dig in his heels, but that's not the point.)
