2017-10-23, 07:59 AM
(2017-10-23, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]But maybe there's something wrong with his test of the hypothesis too.
Indeed. There is. Something very wrong.
(2017-10-23, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]But maybe there's something wrong with his test of the hypothesis too.
(2017-10-23, 02:57 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to agree with me about this. So, let's move on to whether the distinction can apply to hypothesis testing. Of this, in your initial response to me, you wrote, of trying to test whether "p implies q" as per the paper you referenced:
[fls:] You are attempting to confirm the idea when you choose to look at "p". Your result may be "q" (alternative hypothesis confirmed) or "not q" (null hypothesis confirmed).
You are attempting to falsify the idea when you choose to look at "not q". Your result may be "not p" (alternative hypothesis confirmed) or "p" (null hypothesis confirmed).
However, as both the paper and logic dictate, whilst, yes, starting by looking at the consequent "not q" can potentially falsify the hypothesis (in the case that the antecedent turns out to be "p"), starting by looking at the antecedent "p" can also potentially falsify the hypothesis (in the case that the consequent turns out to be "not q").
Both tests can potentially falsify the hypothesis.
(2017-10-23, 03:58 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]So if we are agreed that none of those things are pertinent with respect to "falsify" or "disconfirmation", what was I (and other scientists) talking about? I gave the answer in my first post by linking to two papers which you've only just now read (partially), and have decided are irrelevant. So you can see why I have found this an uphill struggle. But at least, we can maybe be on the same page from this point.
(2017-10-23, 03:58 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, both kinds of tests - "p implies q" or "not q implies not p" - have the potential to be false or true, so "falsify" also does not refer to whether a test has the potential to return an answer of "false".
And I also agree that you cannot imply "p implies q" from "not p implies not q", but no one would suggest otherwise, since that is logically invalid. I suggested that "p implies q" is implied (or confirmed) when "not q implies not p" is found to be true. So "falsify" also does not refer to a test which does not have the ability to confirm the hypothesis.
(2017-10-23, 03:58 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]So if we are agreed that none of those things are pertinent with respect to "falsify" or "disconfirmation", what was I (and other scientists) talking about? I gave the answer in my first post by linking to two papers which you've only just now read (partially), and have decided are irrelevant.
(2017-10-24, 01:10 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think the second paper could definitely be relevant in certain scientific contexts - and it even provides examples of especially medical contexts in which it could be relevant.
(2017-10-24, 01:10 AM)PLaird Wrote: [ -> ]I really hate, when we're so close to full agreement, to have to say, "Argh, that's still not quite right", but...
Quote:...there are a few errors in what you write above. You write that the two tests are "p implies q" and "not q implies not p" - whereas those are (sort of - see next point) rather potential outcomes of the tests, not the tests themselves.
Quote:I think from what I wrote above, you can see that I don't agree that "not q implies not p" can ever be found to be true (at least in the scenario at issue: that of the first paper), because q (or not q) is only ever the consequent in these tests.
But let's say that it could. In that case: yes, you are correct that "not q implies not p" logically entails "p implies q", but this is really only because of a quirk of the definition of logical implication, in which a false antecedent always produces a true result, regardless of the value of the consequent (I could elaborate on what I mean but I won't unless it particularly interests you or anybody else). I don't think that in "everyday" logic we would accept this entailment, and I especially don't think that we would accept this entailment as proof in a scientific experiment.
Quote:I think the second paper could definitely be relevant in certain scientific contexts - and it even provides examples of especially medical contexts in which it could be relevant. The sort of hypothesis testing or rule discovery in which it deals seems to be about more complex cases in which we are trying to discover which rule out of a universe of rules is applicable.
For example, it describes "the rule discovery task" as follows:
'There is a class of objects with which you are concerned; some of the objects have a particular property of interest and others do not. The task of rule discovery is to determine the set of characteristics that differentiate those with this target property from those without it'.
I would argue that these sort of tasks are not very (if at all) relevant in the simpler, perhaps more "standard" cases we've been discussing (at least in parapsychology): those in which a straightforward, falsifiable hypothesis is proposed, and is then tested in an experiment framed in terms of null and alternative hypotheses, in which the null is then either rejected or not rejected on a statistical basis.
Quote:I think too that this paper anyway says something key about "disconfirmation" (in these more complex cases of rule discovery etc):
'[It] is very important to distinguish between two different senses of "seeking disconfirmation." One sense is to examine instances that you predict will not have the target property. The other sense is to examine instances you most expect to falsify, rather than verify, your hypothesis. This distinction has not been well recognized in past analyses, and confusion between the two senses of disconfirmation has figured in at least two published debates'.
In other words: sometimes, examining an instance that you predict will have the target property, which in one sense is "seeking confirmation", can, in another sense, be "disconfirming". The paper goes into more detail as to when this is the case.
Possibly, this is why the paper prefers to distinguish between +Htests and -Htests, and +Ttests and -Ttests, rather than calling these "confirming" or "disconfirming" tests.
(2017-10-24, 10:35 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I think it bears emphasis that the potential outcomes of the different tests are conclusive falsifications or ambiguous verifications. And that it is "false negatives" (h-tests, t+tests) which provide conclusive falsification that your hypothesis is necessary. "False positives" (h+tests, t-tests) merely show that your hypothesis is not sufficient. If you want to show that psi is necessary (which is probably what is needed to get other scientists to take psi seriously), an emphasis on h- or t+tests would be useful.
(2017-10-24, 10:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]If you hate it, why go to such lengths to find something to disagree with?
(2017-10-24, 10:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]That's an odd way to put it. Why use name-calling to dismiss it?
(2017-10-24, 10:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I could just as easily say that it is a quirk of the definition of logical implication that a true consequent always produces a true result, regardless of the value of the antecedent
(2017-10-24, 10:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]so why would anyone would accept "p implies q" based on this entailment?
(2017-10-24, 10:35 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I think it bears emphasis that the potential outcomes of the different tests are conclusive falsifications or ambiguous verifications. And that it is "false negatives" (h-tests, t+tests) which provide conclusive falsification that your hypothesis is necessary. "False positives" (h+tests, t-tests) merely show that your hypothesis is not sufficient.
(2017-10-24, 10:35 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to show that psi is necessary (which is probably what is needed to get other scientists to take psi seriously), an emphasis on h- or t+tests would be useful.