(March 29, 2021 at 2:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 29, 2021 at 2:03 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: So how would you, for example, keep Lamarckism alive with revisions?

I'm not sure. I suppose you could shrink or shift it's scope and application. Gould apperantly viewed social learning as a form of Lamarckism. So we could change the theories focus from information that is inherited reproductively, to information that is inherited behaviorally.

Ptolomy's epicycles are a better illustration here. The insertion of epicycles was a revision made to geocentrism that brought it into harmony with observation, while maintaining it's central framework alive. I don't know what the epicycles of Lamarckism could be.

But the epicycles of Ptolemy did NOT keep it in harmony with observation. That is part of the point. Simply adding epicycles simply wasn't enough to get precise agreement with observations.

The Ptolemaic system was recognized as having problems during the middle ages. As more and more precise observations were made, the discrepancies between the Ptolemaic system and those observations became more and more clear. By the time Tycho was doing his observations, the only way to fix the problems were by throwing out the whole system and replacing it with heliocentrism. That Kepler was able to describe simple laws for the observed motion went a long way to killing the Ptolemaic worldview.

In addition to the positions, the Ptolemaic system was unable to explain the differences in brightness of the planets and how they changed over time.

When Galileo  discovered the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, the Ptolemaic theory was dead. The basic scheme of the system was shown to be broken.

Then Newton came along and gave a *much* more accurate system, whereby the adjustments made depended on the actual masses of the planets. This was in contrast to the Ptolemaic system where the epicycles were introduced to 'preserve the appearances' with no actual theoretical motivation.

So, no, it *isn't* always possible to simply tweak a theory and keep it going. There are some observations that strike at the central assumptions of a model and show that model to be incorrect.

Yeah, not to mention why are Ptolemy's epicycles better examples since you said any theory will do? Especially since epicycles were added almost 2 thousand years ago, if you wanted to use it as "a better example" of keeping the theory alive with adding revisions then why not mention some new revisions that were added to geocentrism? Because nobody is adding any since it was proven wrong.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:04 pm)polymath257 Wrote: So, no, it *isn't* always possible to simply tweak a theory and keep it going. There are some observations that strike at the central assumptions of a model and show that model to be incorrect.

Good theories have aspects that can be adjusted to new information, but they also have foundational predictions which must hold true or the theory is false.

Bad theories can never be found to be so flawed as to be false, because they never predict anything foundational.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:16 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, not to mention why are Ptolemy's epicycles better examples since you said any theory will do? Especially since epicycles were added almost 2 thousand years ago, if you wanted to use it as "a better example" of keeping the theory alive with adding revisions then why not mention some new revisions that were added to geocentrism? Because nobody is adding any since it was proven wrong.

I used this example because most people know it; and it illustrates how theories are modified. The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (IIT) for example, is currently in its third iteration. But I don't expect anyone here to be familiar with it. As for the geocentric model, certainly, one of its first revisions was that of changing circular orbits to elliptical orbits.

Quote:Because nobody is adding any since it [Ptolomy] was proven wrong.

The reason why no one is adding to it has to do with scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, not because of its "proven" wrong:

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The reason why no one is adding to it has to do with scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, not because of its "proven" wrong:

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

This is because the one is an isomorphism of the other. Truly, the theories that "All swans are white" and "All swans are black" both validly describe the world correctly for appropriate definitions of black and white. Given the right changes, the theories are not just similar but identical. The question is not whether a theory can maintain the appearance of preservation, but whether they can do so within a reasonable understanding of ceteris paribus. With the right changes in background knowledge, the theory of evolution and the theory of design are the same theory and make the same predictions, ala theistic evolution. Unfortunately the changes needed to make the two consistent violate assumptions of the theory of evolution regarding chance and naturalism which are foundational assumptions of the theory. So while theories can be preserved, that doesn't mean that every change necessarily preserves the theory.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

Quote:Because nobody is adding any since it [Ptolomy] was proven wrong.

The reason why no one is adding to it has to do with scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, not because of its "proven" wrong:

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

It is true that Copernicus didn't prove Ptolemy wrong.  If he did, the Copernican view would've prevailed (despite the church).

The problem is that Copernicus' theory didn't make correct predictions either.  Both needed epicycles.

Hawking's point was not that one can arbitrarily chose any theory you like. 

Bound to Earth, without telescopes or other evidence, and without any theoretical framework of gravity, either explained the observations equally poorly.  The point is to find more evidence, and to create a mathematical framework that can make further predictions. 

Science doesn't get involved with "proofs".  That's mathematics.  Science is about pragmatism.  A theory works and is useful or it doesn't.  The best theories are even "beautiful", in that they explain so much with so few assumptions.  Evolution is one of those.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The reason why no one is adding to it has to do with scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, not because of its "proven" wrong:

cycles were added but they were disproven when the new methods of observations were discovered, as well as the new approach to science. It was seen that objects like moons of Jupiter don't orbit the Earth and the rest followed. It was no paradigm, it was simple observation.

(March 29, 2021 at 4:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: "Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

Maybe Copernicus didn't prove geocentrism wrong, but Galileo did.

(March 29, 2021 at 5:03 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Hawking's point was not that one can arbitrarily chose any theory you like. 

I don't know whether or not Hawking would agree. But as far as his book is concerned, he only favors one theory over the other on the basis of simplicity (which I would argue is equivalent to being arbitrary). And he seems to leave the actual nature of the universe to philosophy. Here's the rest of his quote for reference:

"Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest."

(March 29, 2021 at 5:15 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 29, 2021 at 5:03 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Hawking's point was not that one can arbitrarily chose any theory you like. 

I don't know whether or not Hawking would agree. But as far as his book is concerned, he only favors one theory over the other on the basis of simplicity (which I would argue is equivalent to being arbitrary). And he seems to leave the actual nature of the universe to philosophy. Here's the rest of his quote for reference:

"Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest."

Hawking was saying that based on the evidence of the time (both theories being workable but not accurate), this is indeed a factor that a scientist may look at.

However, evidence is far more important.

Quantum Theory is one of the most validated theories in science, but solving the mathematics is difficult for most situations.  The mathematics can be stated in a simple manner -- it just can't be solved.  Difficult mathematics does not make a theory wrong -- it would be a factor only if two theories were equal in all other ways.

Einstein said "A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".  This is another way of saying that the most successful theories predict the most with the least assumptions.  However, one cannot know beforehand how simple a theory must be in order to be correct.  It is a relative thing.

As for choosing a simpler theory (all else being equal) being "arbitrary" -- nothing is farther from the truth.  It is based on logic. 

There are an infinite number of ways that a phenomenon can be explained.  One can always add more baseless pieces to a story to make it work.  However, after a while the story gets convoluted.  This is evidence of failure.  There must exist an explanation that maximally explains the phenomenon, with the fewest assumptions.  This explanation is pragmatically better (and one could argue this is the only thing science deals with), but is also preferred on a logical and philosophical basis. 

Something approaching this explanation must be closer to the "truth" than the infinite number of complicated just-so stories that can be spun.  Yes, that is a bit of a Platonic view of "truth", but I argue that science is a mix of Platonism and Pragmatism.

(March 29, 2021 at 5:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Truly, the theories that "All swans are white" and "All swans are black" both validly describe the world correctly for appropriate definitions of black and white.

I'm not sure I understood your analogy, but I would be careful not to confuse theories with descriptions. The phrase All swans are X doesn't function as a theory.