On Friday 10 December 2004 16:06, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
This notion of "credible" reminds me of "confidence" discussed in the 3rd bullet below in light of global climate change:
http://goatee.net/2003/01.html#_13mo °03.01.13.mo | The Politics of Science and Vice Versa ... I want to understand to what degree, if any, something can be commonly known. This is what I've learned: * An understanding of fact and theory based on Moran/Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory", + There are observations of facts about the state of the Universe. We know that the sun moves in the sky, rising and falling -- regardless of some Biblical interpretations. Objects on earth fall. The earth has existed for billions of years with varied life forms living upon it. And this planet is undergoing substantive climate change. + There are theories that explain the relationships between observations, posit mechanisms, and predict future events. The earth orbits the sun according to gravitational principles that also govern the path of the apple falling from my hand. Our present continents developed via geological processes including plate tectonics. And humans have, in part, effected climatic change and its probable detrimental effects. And just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it is dismissable or that every "theory" is equally capable. + There is evidence that determines our confidence in both facts and theories. One would think the nature of ascertaining facts via observation is trivial, but we must be wary of hindsight bias, confirmation bias, placebo effects, and all manner of other prejudicial phenomena. With respect to theory, confidence is determined by the nature of its assumptions, testability, the quality of the underlying data/observations, and the theory's explanatory power. Theories are wrestled with by the scientific community, tested, repeated, confirmed, and settled upon by scientific consensus and ultimately judged by historical hindsight. However, the relationship between fact and theory is complicated because we often can not perfectly observe the state of something, such as the surface air temperatures and thickness of the Arctic ice cap. We then must take samples and extrapolate, which now, in part, constitutes a theory about the validity of the extrapolation until the extrapolation is considered so conclusive as to engender a fact. For example, only the irrational or obstinate would dispute the observation of fact that it is very cold in Boston today absent readings from thermometers in every square foot of Boston. + Anything can, and unfortunately will, be disputed. Some can argue that the aliens have placed the image of the falling apple in my mind or that God placed fossils in the earth to test my faith. However, these pronouncements are useless.
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981. The above reliance upon aliens and gods to explain a falling apple as fact is absurd because they defy every other assumption necessary to daily life in this world: that the majority of humans can trust their most basic senses. As a theory, these pronouncements can not be tested and they offer us no novel explanations of the past nor predictions for the future. Science is the difficult process of gaining a useful understanding of our world while avoiding an alarming collection of biases, self-interested prejudices, and cognitive blind-spots. Furthermore, scientists can, should, and do argue about particular nuances without necessarily undermining the confidence of a larger understanding. For instance, scientists might discuss gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium without contesting the geological records, fossil records, nor natural selection. Or they may come to find that an understanding only applies to previously known assumptions, but new assumptions (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry, relativistic time/space, the quantum scale, etc.) require new observations and explanations under the new conditions. * As I've written before, "We can never know everything." We all can't be experts on everything, so we often need to rely upon credible authority while remaining critical and skeptical, but never dismissive. * It's no good being dogmatic. I've found the criticism of the IPCC policy summaries (distinct from the actual report) to be interesting and the recent debate regarding ice sampling in the Arctic worthy of further research. ...