(January 17, 2022 at 11:39 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
Science can handle the possibility that correlations are false. If the correlation between drownings and phenomenon x becomes apparent, the next step is to formulate a new hypothesis that can be falsified and continue testing.
For example: more people swim in the summer. Also more ice cream trucks rolling around in the summer. Let's see if "it being summer" (or something else) doesn't better explain the supposed correlation.
If poly is taking up the mantle of Humean skepticism, then I think your criticisms are apt. But I don't think these criticisms are good criticisms of science in general. If only one experiment could be done ever, then yes... a false correlation is devastating to gnosis. But science can take hundreds of cracks at a problem. So one bad result doesn't seem like an issue to me.
How do you falsify a correlation? Typically, confounding factors are considered better explanations because lower-level phenomena correlate with drownings in a way that ice cream trucks do not. But this requires assuming that the causative mechanism of the confounding factor is lower level than that of ice cream trucks, which is a conclusion you can only reach through an argument from ignorance. If correlation is causation, then the concept of a confounding factor evaporates and you have no way to privilege the confounding factors as explanations over that of the ice cream trucks.