On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:30:19 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: Let me start with a well-known saying:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Meaning, of course, if one makes a claim that runs counter to what is generally accepted as "true" (e.g., claiming that the earth is roundish, that the sun is the center of the solar system), reasonable people will ask what is the evidence in support of such claims. Unreasonable people with sufficient power and authority may not only dismiss and ignore such claims but may also imprison or kill the persons advocating such views. Allow me to paraphrase the saying above to the following: "Even mundane claims about everyday life require extraordinary evidence because ascertaining causal relationships in real life situations cannot be done with real condifence without experimental research because mere observation will only at best suggest correlations among potentially relevant variables but will never establish causal relations" Not as pithy as the original statement but I think it covers all of the relevant issues. I would also suggest Steven Sloman's book "Causal Models" as a review about how ordinary think about causal relations, when do they get it right, and what makes them to get it wrong; see: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Cognitive/?view=usa&ci=0195183118 Let's move on. > Michael Sylvester said he is tired of the demand for references. lol Michael Sylvester appears to be a man of faith, he appears to accept what people say uncritically, regardless of how riciduluous they may be or inconsistent with empirical evidence they are; however, this seems to be true only if it is in agreement with his existing beliefs (i.e., a self-confirming bias). In this situation serious scholarship in form of thoroughly knowing a literature and being able to articulate positions and cite chapter and verse in support of those positions is not relevant. References are for people who don't believe that they have the "Truth" and think that they live in a probabilistic universe in contrast to those who do know the "Truth" and understand that the universe is simple and completely deterministic (at least in the confines of one's mind; what does it matter if no one else agrees with you?). > Well that's not likely to change, but I agree that you have a point. And, of course, there are the enablers. > Generally someone makes a point and provides a reference and the point > tends to be considered proven and true. This is such an extraordinary statement that I almost don't know where to start a response to it. Dr. Smith has shown a tendency for not providing references (i.e., the literature that provides the empirical support for the statements that he making), even in the simple case of providing a link to a Wikipedia entry that he is allegedly citing. Let me start by focusing on the last part of his statement "the point tends to be considered proven and true". Let me make a few comments on this: (1) If one is referring to mathematics or logic or some other formal system that relies heavily or exclusively on deductive logic, the use of the term "proof" and "true" take on certain specific definitions which are quite clear. A proof shows how a conclusion validly follows from a set of premises or assumptions which have had rules applied to them that leads one to the conclusion. The proof is true if the rules have been applied appropriatedly within their system and there are no contradictions produced within the proof. This kind of knowledge is certain and unambiguous (though one can ask questions about the appropriateness of the assumptions and the rules used; within the system as defined, however, one can be assured that one has a valid and true proof or not). (2) The intellectually careless or sloppy or ignorant might use the word "proof" not in the sense above but in as a "weasal word", that is, to give the impression that an issue has been shown to be definitively true without an examination of either the argument that serves as the basis for this claim or the relevant evidence. For example, commercials for many herbal supplements "body part extenders", and other products may make statements such as "clinical research proves it works!" without providing a cititation to the research or review of the evidence -- this is done to convery a false sense of the effective of the product being sold. The choice of "proof" and "true" is intentional because they convey a certain finality and lack of uncertainty, something that the term "evidence" does not suggest (e.g., there is a radio commercial where some "brain supplement" is being given away for free and apparent "consumers" say things like "They're giving it away for free? It must be good!" followed up by we couldn't say this if it weren't "true"). (3) Since most empirical research is an inductive reasoning activity and we typically do not have access to all relevant cases, we must deal with samples of observations which may or may not be representative of all possible cases. The "Black Swan Problem", which I believe what most explored by David Hume, asked how could we "prove" that the following statement was "true" (any empirical claim could be substituted for the statement that is used): (A) All swans are white. Now on the basis of all empirical experience to the early 18th century, everyone in Europe and neighboring areas of Africa and Asia provided confirmation that all swans in existence were white (a swan of a different color in this situation would be a pathological case). Empirically, there was overwhelming support for the the truth of the statement "all swans are white" but there remained one important and unconsidered question: have we examined all possible instances of swans and have we found all of them to be white? The answer to this question was "NO" but could be ignored because the evidence for "all swans are white" was so overwhelming: all of the cultures and their histories always confirmed that swans were white. Wasn't this "proof" that "all swans are white"? Travelling, y'know, is a good thing because it gets one out of one's limited environment and makes one appreciate that the rest of the world is not like your local environment (i.e., "home"). And what you thought was certain and unchallengeable at "home" might in fact turn out to be wrong because the local environment provided only a biased sample of observations and evidence for things. So, when European travellers finally made it to Australia and found that there were flocks of black swans living there, this posed something of a problem. The folks back "home" could do a variety of things in response to such news: (i) Deny it. All experience led to the inescapable conclusion that "all swans are white". Either the explorers are lying or they are "mad". (ii) Ask for evidence of such creatures, preferably in the form of actual black swans (NOTE: explorers also spoke of other incredible creatures such a mermaids: one could uncritically accept that such creatures existed or one could ask what was the evidence for such a claim, that is, produce an actual mermaid). The main point here is that unless all relevant instances can be examined, a sample of observation may not provide sufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion, that is, mere observation does not provide "proof". It should be noted that empirically we can have situations that can be interpreted as "proof". Consider the following statement: (B) All U.S. Presidents have been men. Is this an empirically true statement? Can we examine all relevant presidents to determine whether they were actually male (and not females in disguise or of intersex gender)? Yes. In a situation like this, where all relevant cases are available for examination, we can reach some really "true" conclusions (similarly, by examining the richest 100 U.S. citizens we might reach other true conclusions, such as the irrelevance of a doctorate in being among the richest). Getting back to the starting point: If one is making a statement like "All U.S. Presidents have been men", then it may be accepted as being "true" and unless one is not familiar with U.S. presidents "proof" for such a statement might not be asked for. If one is making a statement like "Spanking has beneficial effects on child behavior which extends into adolescence and adulthood", well, one might be curious as whether someone or anyone is capable of examining all cases of where children have been spanked and compared that to similar situations where children have not been spanked. This would be a truly extraordinary research project and I for one would like to study it if for no other reason than to understand how such a project could be done. However, if only a sample of such children have been studied, no definitive conclusions can be reached (unless one puts more stock in faith of their conclusions than the empirical support for such conclusions). Indeed, because they are only samples, how representative are the samples? Issues of external validity are relevant but one just has to remember how there was overwhelming evidence for the claim that "all swans are white" but this statement has been shown to be false. Strong claims about empirical phenomena should be based on strong empircal evidence and anyone who has read or conducted a meta-analysis or a systematic quantitative review of a research literature will realize that one should be very cautious about uncritically accepting a published study's conclusions and should also realize that other readers may have very different interpretations and evaluation of the same study. On the last point, it might benefit people to spend some time (e.g., years) going over the materials on the following websites: www.cochrane.org www.campbellcollaboration.org Just a little more and I'll stop. > The inclusion of a reference or two which "settles it" can be a kind > of reference to authority. First, a reference that is of the kind that, say, establishes that there are black swan does settle it when it comes to claiming that "All swans are white". Substitute any empirical claim for "all swans are white" and this point remains relevant -- it is a key component of falsificationism. Second, if one says that valid and reliable data which has been appropriately analysed has the ability to decide between claims/hypotheses, then, yes, this is an authority that most of empirical science accepts. It is not the "reference" that is the authority, it is the data and what the data tells us that is the authority. Think of it in these terms: the reference or published research article is just the wrapper for the tasty chewy goodness that is the data and results within. Anyone else feels like having a Snickers bar right now? ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
