Another Word on Thinking, Truth & Logic

What Do We Mean by 'Scientific Truth'?
By Peter Ellerton, May 17, 2012

Editor's Note: This article was provided by The Conversation. The original can be found here.

Calling something a “scientific truth” is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it carries a kind of epistemic (how we know) credibility, a quality assurance that a truth has been arrived at in an understandable and verifiable way.

On the other, it seems to suggest science provides one of many possible categories of truth, all of which must be equal or, at least, non-comparable. Simply put, if there’s a “scientific truth” there must be other truths out there. Right?

Let me answer this by reference to the fingernail-on-the-chalkboard phrase I’ve heard a little too often:

“But whose truth?”

If somebody uses this phrase in the context of scientific knowledge, it shows me they’ve conflated several incompatible uses of “truth” with little understanding of any of them.

As is almost always the case, clarity must come before anything else. So here is the way I see truth, shot from the hip.

While philosophers talk about the coherence or correspondence theories of truth, the rest of us have to deal with another, more immediate, division: subjective, deductive (logical) and inductive (in this case, scientific) truth.

This has to do with how we use the word and is a very practical consideration. Just about every problem a scientist or science communicator comes across in the public understanding of “truth” is a function of mixing up these three things.

Subjective Truth

Subjective truth is what is true about your experience of the world. How you feel when you see the colour red, what ice-cream tastes like to you, what it’s like being with your family -- all these are your experiences and yours alone.

In 1974 the philosopher Thomas Nagel published a now-famous paper about what it might be like to be a bat. He points out that even the best chiropterologist in the world, knowledgeable about the mating, eating, breeding, feeding and physiology of bats, has no more idea of what it is like to be a bat than you or me.

Similarly, I have no idea what a banana tastes like to you, because I am not you and cannot ever be in your head to feel what you feel (there are arguments regarding common physiology and hence psychology that could suggest similarities in subjective experiences, but these are presently beyond verification).

What’s more, if you tell me your favourite colour is orange, there are absolutely no grounds on which I can argue against this – even if I felt inclined. Why would I want to argue, and what would I hope to gain? What you experience is true for you, end of story.

Deductive Truth

Deductive truth, on the other hand, is that contained within and defined by deductive logic. Here’s an example:

Premise 1: All Gronks are green.

Premise 2: Fred is a Gronk.

Conclusion: Fred is green.

Even if we have no idea what a Gronk is, the conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are true. If you think this isn’t the case, you’re wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion or personal taste.

If you want to argue the case, you have to step out of the logical framework in which deductive logic operates, and this invalidates rational discussion. We might be better placed using the language of deduction and just call it “valid,” but “true” will do for now.

In my classes on deductive logic we talk about truth tables, truth trees, and use “true” and “false” in every second sentence and no one bats (cough) an eyelid, because we know what we mean when we use the word.

Using “true” in science, however, is problematic for much the same reason that using “prove” is problematic (and I have written about that on The Conversation before). This is a function of the nature of inductive reasoning.

Inductive Truth

Induction works mostly through analogy and generalisation. Unlike deduction, it allows us to draw justified conclusions that go beyond the information contained in the premise. It is induction’s reliance on empirical observation that separates science from mathematics.

In observing one phenomenon occurring in conjunction with another – an electric current and an induced magnetic field, for instance – I generalise that this will always be so. I might even create a model, an analogy of the workings of the real world, to explain it – in this case that of particles and fields.

This then allows me to predict what future events might occur or to draw implications and create technologies, such as developing an electric motor.

And so I inductively scaffold my knowledge, using information I rely upon as a resource for further enquiry. At no stage do I arrive at deductive certainty, but I do enjoy greater degrees of confidence.

I might even speak about things being “true,” but, apart from simple observational statements about the world, I use the term as a manner of speech only to indicate my high level of confidence.

Now, there are some philosophical hairs to split here, but my point is not to define exactly what truth is, but rather to say there are differences in how the word can be used, and that ignoring or conflating these uses leads to a misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

For instance, the lady that said to me it was true for her that ghosts exist was conflating a subjective truth with a truth about the external world.

I asked her if what she really meant was “it is true that I believe ghosts exist.” At first she was resistant, but when I asked her if it could be true for her that gravity is repulsive, she was obliging enough to accept my suggestion.

Such is the nature of many “it’s true for me” statements, in which the epistemic validity of a subjective experience is misleadingly extended to facts about the world.

Put simply, it smears the meaning of truth so much that the distinctions I have outlined above disappear, as if “truth” only means one thing.

This is generally done with the intent of presenting the unassailable validity of said subject experiences as a shield for dubious claims about the external world – claiming that homeopathy works “for me,” for instance. Attacking the truth claim is then, if you accept this deceit, equivalent to questioning the genuine subject experience.

Checkmate... unless you see how the rules have been changed.

It has been a long and painful struggle for science to rise from this cognitive quagmire, separating out subjective experience from inductive methodology. Any attempt to reunite them in the public understanding of science needs immediate attention.

Operating as it should, science doesn’t spend its time just making truth claims about the world, nor does it question the validity of subject experience – it simply says it’s not enough to make object claims that anyone else should believe.

Subjective truths and scientific truths are different creatures, and while they sometimes play nicely together, their offspring are not always fertile.

So next time you are talking about truth in a deductive or scientifically inductive way and someone says “but whose truths”, tell them a hard one: it’s not all about them.

Peter Ellerton is a Ph.D. student and casual lecturer in critical thinking at University of Queensland.

The Cost of Higher Fuel Economy 

NY Times, April 4, 2012

Electric cars, hybrids and high-mileage versions of some vehicles are more efficient but also more expensive than similar offerings from the same brand. Even given high gas prices, it may take years to earn back the additional cost.

DETROIT — Ed Moran’s new Toyota Prius was programmed by the dealer to make him feel good about his gas savings. A dashboard display compares the fuel consumption of the Prius and his 2001 Ford pickup truck.

Multimedia

Multimedia Feature

2012 New York Auto Show: Photo Gallery

Graphic

The Cost of Higher Fuel Economy

Related

• For $279,000, Terrafugia Transition Puts the Wind Beneath Your Wings (April 5, 2012)

“Every time I go to the store it will tell me how much money I saved,” said Mr. Moran, a horticulturist in Ames, Iowa.

Like more and more Americans, Mr. Moran is looking to a fuel-efficient car to help soften the financial blow of ever higher gas prices.

Shoppers have more options than ever to fight back, including hybrids, plug-ins, electric vehicles and “eco” or “super fuel economy” packages.

But opting for models that promise better mileage through new technologies does not necessarily save money, according to data compiled for The New York Times by TrueCar.com, an automotive research Web site.

Except for two hybrids, the Prius andLincoln MKZ, and the diesel-poweredVolkswagen Jetta TDI, the added cost of the fuel-efficient technologies is so high that it would take the average driver many years — in some cases more than a decade — to save money over comparable new models with conventional internal-combustion engines.

That is true at today’s pump prices, around $4, and also if gas were to climb to $5 a gallon, the data shows.

Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car.

Reveal rest of post >>

Evolution: Theory, Fact or Law

*****************************

Addendum: The Law of Evolution

In the physical sciences there are many observations or facts that have given rise to generalizations: two of these are the law of conservation of matter and the law of definite proportions (which states that when two or more elements combine to form a compound they do so in definite proportions by weight). The statements of facts and their convenient generalization to laws are expressed in terms of macroscopically observable and weighable quantities. The overarching explanation for these laws is achieved in atomic theory, which is expressed in terms of invisible atoms and molecules. No one thinks that atomic theory is “just a theory,” for it possesses extraordinary explanatory power and provides the context in which many of the conveniences of our civilization depend. Thus we proceed from many observations or facts to their generalization in terms of laws, both levels macroscopic, to a theory expressed in terms of invisible entities.

If we now apply this scheme to biology, we see that the concept of evolution is at the law level, as it summarizes the results of a large number of observations or facts about organisms. The analogous theory is natural selection or other means by which evolution is achieved. Unknown nearly 150 years ago to Darwin, explanations of macroscopic evolution in terms of microscopic genes and molecular sequences of nucleic bases in DNA are known to us. Placing the concept of evolution at the law level clarifies its status; it is not a theory.

In contrast, the premise of Intelligent Design fails to meet even the most fundamental elements of rational inquiry. By being able to account for everything by divine edict, Intelligent Design explains nothing.

*****************************
Only a Theory? Framing the Evolution/Creation Issue

By: David Morrison, Skeptical Inquirer, November/December 2005

David Morrison is a long-time NASA senior scientist and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow. He now divides his time between the SETI Institute and the NASA Lunar Science Institute. He hosts the "Ask an Astrobiologist" column at NASA's website.

Evolution opponents are framing the issues to our disadvantage; they focus on the phrase “theory of evolution,” when theory is today understood by the public as a tentative concept unsupported by evidence.

Public opinion polls tell us that we are losing the battle to explain the nature of evolution and the central role that evolutionary concepts play in modern science. Tens of millions of Americans scoff at evolution and try to protect their children from what they consider to be a pernicious concept.

Given the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, we must be doing something wrong in discussing this issue with the public. There are several ways in which scientists and educators might enhance their effectiveness in this debate. The problems relate to framing the issues, or rather, allowing the opponents of evolution to frame them. Framing involves the selective use of language or context totrigger responses, either support or opposition. We see it in the often deceptive titles of legislation, such as a “clear skies act” or “forest renewal act” or, on the other side, a “death tax.” “Pro-choice” or “pro-life” advocates are always careful to frame their position with the proper emotion-charged terms. (The subject is artfully described in George Lakoff’s book Don’t Think of an Elephant.)

As a prime example, we doom our communications efforts with many nonscientists by defending the “theory of evolution.” Theory is quite simply the wrong word. Polls indicate that three quarters of Americans agreed that “evolution is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution because it has not yet been proven scientifically.” Those who advocate adding “only a theory” disclaimers in textbooks know that to call evolution a is sufficient to undermine its acceptance.

Channeling the discussion into a debate over the “theory of evolution” is an example of framing. Since the great majority of Americans understand the word theory to imply uncertainty and vagueness, the name itself predisposes the answer. It is as if a criminal defendant were described by the judge and other court officials as “the murderer.” Not many juries would want to let a known murderer free, no matter how the evidence was presented. The one who frames the debate often wins.

Yet many proponents of evolution seem content to argue about the “theory of evolution” and its educational role. As scientists, they were taught that a scientific theory is a systematic set of principles that has been shown to fit the facts, and has stood up against attempts to prove it false. A theory is thus the highest level of understanding, synthesizing a wide variety of observations and experiments. But that is not what the word theory means to 99 percent of Americans, including many scientists and educators when they are outside the classroom.

Reveal rest of post >>

Stupid People Should Not Have Children

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Families Who Reject Inoculations Told to Find a New Physician; Contagion in Waiting Room Is a Fear

By SHIRLEY S. WANG, WSJ February 15, 2012

Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices, raising questions about a doctor's responsibility to these patients.

Medical associations don't recommend such patient bans, but the practice appears to be growing, according to vaccine researchers.

Dr. Allan LaReau in Michigan stops treating families who refuse to vaccinate their children. 'You feel badly about losing a nice family,' he says.

In a study of Connecticut pediatricians published last year, some 30% of 133 doctors said they had asked a family to leave their practice for vaccine refusal, and a recent survey of 909 Midwestern pediatricians found that 21% reported discharging families for the same reason.

By comparison, in 2001 and 2006 about 6% of physicians said they "routinely" stopped working with families due to parents' continued vaccine refusal and 16% "sometimes" dismissed them, according to surveys conducted then by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"There's more noise among pediatricians, more people willing to argue that it's OK to do this versus 10 years ago," said Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Diekema wrote the AAP's policy on working with vaccine refusers, which recommends providers address the issue at repeated visits, but respect parents' wishes unless it puts a child at risk of significant harm.

Most pediatricians consider preventing disease through vaccines a primary goal of their job. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and AAP issue an annual recommended vaccination schedule, but some parents ask if their child's immunizations can be pushed back or skipped altogether, pediatricians say.

It's hard to imagine an outbreak of smallpox today. But for centuries the deadly virus wiped out entire populations. WSJ's Christina Tsuei reports on how the discovery of vaccines (with the help of cows) eradicated the disease and led to the prevention of many other diseases.

While rates for several key inoculations in young children rose between 2009 and 2010, according to the CDC, lower immunization rates have been blamed as a factor in U.S. outbreaks of whooping cough and measles in recent years.

Parents often voice concerns about autism or that their child's immune system may be overwhelmed by too many vaccines at once. Worries about a link between vaccines and autism arose because some parents noticed their children regressed, or lost some skills, around the time of their vaccinations at two years of age.  Another concern centered on the former use of mercury as a vaccine preservative.

Numerous studies since have dispelled these concerns among scientists. Rather, scientists say, it is more likely that autism symptoms begin showing up around the same age children are vaccinated.

The rise in patient firings reflects another factor. As patients have become savvier and more willing to challenge doctors, physicians have become increasingly reluctant to deal with uncooperative patients, said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania. In addition, doctors may feel financial pressure to see more patients and so have less time to contend with recalcitrant ones.

Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices. Stefanie Ilgenfritz has details on Lunch Break.

For Allan LaReau of Kalamazoo, Mich., and his 11 colleagues at Bronson Rambling Road Pediatrics, who chose in 2010 to stop working with vaccine-refusing families, a major factor was the concern that unimmunized children could pose a danger in the waiting room to infants or sick children who haven't yet been fully vaccinated.

In one case, an unvaccinated child came in with a high fever and Dr. LaReau feared the patient might have meningitis, a contagious, potentially deadly infection of the brain and spinal cord for which a vaccine commonly is given. "I lost a lot more sleep than I usually do" worrying about the situation, he said.

"You feel badly about losing a nice family from the practice," added Dr. LaReau, but families who refused to vaccinate their kids were told that "this is going to be a difficult relationship without this core part of pediatrics." Some families chose to go elsewhere while others agreed to have their kids inoculated.

Pediatricians disagree about what their duty is to these families. "The bottom line is you should try to do whatever you can to maintain the family in the best care," said Michael Brady, chair of the pediatrics department at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP's immunization committee. "If they leave your practice, they're probably going to gravitate toward another practice with unhealthy practices."

Other physicians say they rarely have had luck persuading vaccine opponents to change their minds.

David Fenner and his 20-plus colleagues at Children's Medical Group in Rhinebeck, N.Y., discuss vaccine concerns but ask families to leave if they don't comply by a certain point.

Dr. Fenner said he tells new families, "You've been bombarded with information before you came here, some accurate and some not." Iif a family refuses to vaccinate after a discussion of the issue, he tells them "there are so many things we're not going to see eye-to-eye on."

So far, the practice has fired a couple of families per year since it implemented the policy about five years ago.

Pamela Felice, who lives in an Atlanta suburb, had difficulty finding a pediatrician for her two children though they have waivers from a previous pediatrician exempting them from school requirements for immunizations. Her older child had gastrointestinal trouble and regressed development after receiving vaccines, she said, which she believes were related to the shots.

Ms. Felice received a letter from her pediatrician a few years ago stating that because the family chose not to vaccinate, it needed to find another doctor. She called four or five other practices but none would agree to an appointment after she told them she was opposed to vaccines. The family ended up with an elderly family doctor who said he had "seen it all" and was willing to treat the children if they got sick, Ms. Felice said.

"A doctor should feel obligated to discuss [potential vaccine] risks with any parent who wants to discuss them," said Ms. Felice.

Read More About Vaccines

Medical Journal Says Autism Study 'Fraud' (Jan. 6, 2011)
More Parents Seek Vaccine Exemption (July 6, 2010)
Book Review: The Shot Heard Round the World (March 26, 2011)