You CAN Change Your Axioms

[ QUOTE ]
David, in what situations do you see world class scientists following their intuition so strongly without producing worse results?

[/ QUOTE ]

The best example I can think of is relativity. It was purely theoretical (built only on altered 'axioms' without laboratory evidence) for a while. The evidence (conclusions) addressed by it (like bending of light rays) forced this change in axioms, which were shown to be consistent with earlier conclusions using the 'old axioms' (i.e., classical physics). I don't think Mr. Sklansky means this change in axioms to we willy-nilly, only when an 'obvious' conclusion cannot be reached using the current axioms. It may be worth seeing if a new set of axioms allows reaching this conclusion while at the same time remaining consistent with other known conclusions. This seems reasonably consistent with the scientific method. I don't think he's saying "shape a set of axioms to fit whatever conclusion you are trying to reach." I do believe he's a bit more sensible than that.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys got me all wrong. I'm talking about when experimental evidence doesn't fit the model. So the model has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the basic premise of the scientific method. If that is what you were saying in your OP you expressed yourself very poorly. (btw, scientists don't have axioms, they have theories. Any theory is subject to testing by making predictions based on it and testing those predictions experimentally. Axioms are things that are assumed to be true and are artifacts of mathematics. Math is not a science.)

I still don't understand the point of this thread. If you want people to understand the scientific method make a post outlining it. You can site numerous examples of where accepted theories were later found to be incorrect. (Newtownian gravity for instance.)

[imported_adhoc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about when experimental evidence doesn't fit the model. So the model has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you aren't, you didn't say anything about evidence at all. Your post was about sticking to what "you know in your heart is true" despite the particular "axiomatic" principles surrounding a situation suggesting an opposite conclusion. You even went so far as to say one has "no choice" but to change the "axioms" one accepts as true "if the conclusion ... is especially ... important to your values," which is both 1) cutesy and 2) the same rationale of Urban VIII and some Jesuit astronomers in sticking to the geocentric theory of the universe. Furthermore, it is not necessarily correct to change a model when evidence doesn't fit it, and almost never correct to do so based on a single trial; a number of variables may condition the experiment in question and there are always problems with the reliability of observed results, as Karl Popper and other thinkers have developed more fully. I'll let others elaborate.

World class scientists, the 1,000 smartest people who ever lived, people who scored a perfect 1600 on the SAT, people with IQs over 200, people who scored 15 tackles for losses, and frequent viewers of the hit TV show "Jeopardy!" all understand this. The odds of their not understanding this are greater than 1 in a google but less than 1 in a googleplex, as Alan Hale, Jr. taught me.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Einstein. It's widely known that he was an atheist in his youth and believed in God in [his] later years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about when experimental evidence doesn't fit the model. So the model has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Experimental evidence plus adequate "explanation" of the experimental evidence.

I trust this is what you meant all the while. (Otherwise, the OP is pure voodoo, as Adhoc pointed out.)

[David Sklansky]

My whole reference to scientists was just a throwaway line that was unnecessary to my point. Geez.

[benkahuna]

Be careful what you say because we of the board reserve the right to both painfully misconstrue it and inappropriately fixate upon it.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys got me all wrong. I'm talking about when experimental evidence doesn't fit the model. So the model has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Well yeah. Sometimes the model is horribly wrong, sometimes, it just requires modification or somehow doesn't apply (like apparent violations of locality by entanglement experiments). Adjust accordingly.

[nate1729]

You're really missing the point here.

There are many many examples of scientific evidence that simply didn't fit with earlier theory. Einstein rings or whatever. "Knowing in your heart" is, for some people, the moral equivalent; your a priori attachment to previous axioms has little basis, particularly when it comes to morality, when there are many many many sets of consistent/plausible axioms. It might very well be true that "X is wrong" is a more reliable bedrock of one's moral theory than "One should act in a way to maximize quantitity Z among set S of people." Moral truth is like that (more so than physical truth,) and misguided appeals to philosophy of science don't change that.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Adhoc : "I know I said I would stop reading this forum after James Woods proved Hitler wasn't evil."

[/ QUOTE ]
As a matter of fact, Sklansky was not postulating anything original - nor did James Woods. Siegmund Freud put it quite succintly, in passing :

[ QUOTE ]
Freud : "No one can really know how far he is good or wicked."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's from p. 58 of Interpretation Of Dreams, Oxford U edition, 1999.

And here's Sklansky, who tends to be a little more high falootin':

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky : "Except possibly for the truly insane, everybody basically thinks they are a generally good person. Even career criminals, mobsters and scoundrels justify to themselves that there is a good reason for what they do. Almost no one simply says to themselves "I am bad period. So what? They make excuses in their mind which amount to a desire to conform to some sort of "moral" code, twisted as it may be.
<font color="white"> . </font>
I realized [this] was right. At least as far as the several dozen bad people I knew. And clearly ... right about suicide bombers. Else why would they give up their lives? Surely not just for the 72 virgins. They must have felt that what they were doing was morally right. And that includes the 9/11 hijackers. Same goes for most, if not all, Nazis. They almost certainly convinced themselves they were not evil. Likewise slaveowners.
<font color="white"> . </font>
I think everyone agrees that a truly crazy person is not evil any more than an animal is. As for those not crazy, how can you call them evil (rather than stupid or deluded) if they take pains to explain to thmselves or others why what they are doing is "right". Now there may be a few sociopathic types that don't fit into this category but they are either non existent or rare enough to ignore. The fact is that most of those we call evil, upon closer examination really aren't. Probably including Hitler."

[/ QUOTE ]