Causality, Explanation, and Deductions of Predictions
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2008
by An Imagineer
http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/
Sometimes it can be just as important to understand what makes a theory valid, as it is to understand what it predicts.
This may be why we found Karl Poppers book " The Logic of Scientific Discovery " so interesting because he describes how the advance and growth of science rests on a doctrine of falsifiablity and only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observations add value to a scientific community.
The copy we read was an English translation of the original German text, which means the clarity of some of his ideas may have been lost in the translation. However, we feel that they are interesting enough to paraphrase some of them here for our friends.
On page 39, he writes:
"To give a casual explanation of an event means to deduce a statement which describes it, using as a premise of the deduction one or more universal laws together with certain singular statements, the initial conditions."
He later goes on to define two different types of statements and how they are related.
The first or as he calls it the "universal statement of laws" apply to the entire universe. These are more commonly called laws of nature. Newton's law of gravity would be an example of a universal statement because it can be applied through out the universe.
The second or singular statement is defined as statements that apply to specific events.
Karl believes that, for a theory to be valid these singular statements must be deducible from the universal statements and a set of initial conditions which are usually assumed to be the cause of an effect.
This may seem simple however, as Karl points out defining how these parameters are related is not.
Most modern scientists believe in the principal of cause and effect or "the assertion that any event can be causally explained can also be deductively predicted."
However, the fact that an event can always be causally explained can have two different meanings depending on your interpretation of the word can.
One can, by using deductive logic define the "reality" or causality of an individual event by analytically observing that event. However, because the prediction is based on observations of that individual event it is always possible to find a set of statements and initial conditions that will satisfy that prediction.
Therefore, this definition of cause and effect is unfalsifiable because the causality of each is based on individual parameters of an event and therefore will always be true for that event.
However, one can also define the causality of an event in terms of what Karl calls a "synthetic" reality or theory based on inductive logic by saying the "world is governed" by strict laws that are constructed so that every single event has a "universal regulation".
This definition of cause and effect is also unfalsifiable because if an event was discovered that did not fall into its definition of "universal regulation" it is possible to redefine it because it is based on a "synthetic" reality which does not have a rigid structure of its own.
We feel Karl Pepper dismisses the validity of "principal or theory of casualty" and most other theories, because they are based on what he calls the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic. For example, the predictive powers of the Standard Model of Particle Physics are based on defining their properties in terms of the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic.
He would consider this to be a "synthetic" reality because it is based on the abstract or inductive logic of mathematical equations and not on the deductive logic derived from observing how particles interact in a "real" or non-abstract environment. According to Karl this makes them unfalsifiable because it is always possible to insert new equations in a theory to validate any observation because they (the equations) are not physically connected to the environment they define.
However, as this NASA video of the Snow Flake Cluster shows our ability to make detailed analytical observations of our environment has increased significantly in recent years. This means, we should now be able to define theories based on deductive observational logic and not on the "synthetic" reality of abstract mathematical equations.
According to Karl, theories developed in this way would add value to scientific community because they would be testable and falsifiable by observations whereas ones based on abstract mathematical logic are not.
Later Jeff
" The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions "
Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O'Callaghan
(Published in the Imagineers Chronicles on 10-15-08)
This may be why we found Karl Poppers book " The Logic of Scientific Discovery " so interesting because he describes how the advance and growth of science rests on a doctrine of falsifiablity and only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observations add value to a scientific community.
On page 39, he writes:
"To give a casual explanation of an event means to deduce a statement which describes it, using as a premise of the deduction one or more universal laws together with certain singular statements, the initial conditions."
He later goes on to define two different types of statements and how they are related.
The first or as he calls it the "universal statement of laws" apply to the entire universe. These are more commonly called laws of nature. Newton's law of gravity would be an example of a universal statement because it can be applied through out the universe.
The second or singular statement is defined as statements that apply to specific events.
Karl believes that, for a theory to be valid these singular statements must be deducible from the universal statements and a set of initial conditions which are usually assumed to be the cause of an effect.
This may seem simple however, as Karl points out defining how these parameters are related is not.
Most modern scientists believe in the principal of cause and effect or "the assertion that any event can be causally explained can also be deductively predicted."
However, the fact that an event can always be causally explained can have two different meanings depending on your interpretation of the word can.
One can, by using deductive logic define the "reality" or causality of an individual event by analytically observing that event. However, because the prediction is based on observations of that individual event it is always possible to find a set of statements and initial conditions that will satisfy that prediction.
Therefore, this definition of cause and effect is unfalsifiable because the causality of each is based on individual parameters of an event and therefore will always be true for that event.
However, one can also define the causality of an event in terms of what Karl calls a "synthetic" reality or theory based on inductive logic by saying the "world is governed" by strict laws that are constructed so that every single event has a "universal regulation".
This definition of cause and effect is also unfalsifiable because if an event was discovered that did not fall into its definition of "universal regulation" it is possible to redefine it because it is based on a "synthetic" reality which does not have a rigid structure of its own.
We feel Karl Pepper dismisses the validity of "principal or theory of casualty" and most other theories, because they are based on what he calls the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic. For example, the predictive powers of the Standard Model of Particle Physics are based on defining their properties in terms of the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic.
He would consider this to be a "synthetic" reality because it is based on the abstract or inductive logic of mathematical equations and not on the deductive logic derived from observing how particles interact in a "real" or non-abstract environment. According to Karl this makes them unfalsifiable because it is always possible to insert new equations in a theory to validate any observation because they (the equations) are not physically connected to the environment they define.
However, as this NASA video of the Snow Flake Cluster shows our ability to make detailed analytical observations of our environment has increased significantly in recent years. This means, we should now be able to define theories based on deductive observational logic and not on the "synthetic" reality of abstract mathematical equations.
According to Karl, theories developed in this way would add value to scientific community because they would be testable and falsifiable by observations whereas ones based on abstract mathematical logic are not.
Later Jeff
" The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions "
Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O'Callaghan
(Published in the Imagineers Chronicles on 10-15-08)
This Article has been viewed 139 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.