Feeling Pinky Keen: The Debate

[Ginger Mint]

hi hi

So I keep hearing every now and again people complaining about the episode Feeling Pinky Keen, because it supposedly is an attack on science. This confused me a little bit at first, because I am a very science oriented person myself and it is the episode that got me interested in MLP in the first place.

Feeling Pinkie Keen bugged me, but that is more because my personal rationalist, secular views. The idea that some things just need to be taken on faith rather bugged me. It is technically true that there can be phenomenon that cannot be explain that is true, but I always view such things as cannot be explained yet, not that there is no possible explanation.

- brianblackberry posted this in another topic. I'm not trying to single anyone out, just siting some references.

I suppose I can understand why the moral is a little bit hard to accept on account of Twilight's poor scientific method, but that wasn't what the episode was really about. There are two morals to the story that are both very pro-science. The whole "choose to believe," bit at the end was particularly subversive because the unexplainable phenomenon was actually very scientific.

Moral One: Accepting Law Without Theory (Primarily For Kids)

This is a big one that a lot of science oriented folks get wrong all the time and it drives me nuts. A scientific Law and a scientific Theory are two totally separate things that are never interchangeable. Laws are descriptions of observed phenomenon, while Theories are explanations of how the mechanics of observable phenomenon work. Theories don't ever become Laws with enough gathered evidence, and there is no Law that was ever a Theory. Ever.

So in Feeling Pinkie Keen we have an observable phenomenon that has a very reliable outcome. A Theory for how it works is NOT necessary for the descriptive observations to be accurate.

This is especially important for children because they will not initially have the mathematical skills necessary to understand the proofs of various Theories themselves and must necessarily take them for granted, with the only evidence being the ability of said theory to predict future events.

Predicting future events is the fundamental purpose of science. Those predictions may require a solid understanding, but it is the accuracy of predictions that ultimately decides the validity of any scientific Theory. I find it no coincidence that Pinkie Pie's power was in fact predicting things. It was almost too on the nose.

In the episode, Pinkie Pie says "You don't believe because you don't understand." This is a critical moment in analyzing the moral of the story. It is important to note that Pinkie Pike doesn't say "You don't understand because you don't believe," nor can you infer that statement -that would be the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. The point is, the moral is about understanding. At the end, Twilight concedes that she believes the phenomenon is real. She does not concede that can not possibly be explained, rather that its truth is not dependent on understanding.

I don't know the mathematics behind quantum mechanics, nor do I think I ever will. I didn't even make it to calculus when I was in school, however, I can still use quantum mechanics in my daily life because its effects are observable and predictable. I rely on friendly scientist types to help me out with the hard mathematics, but I don't think that there is any scientist out there that fully understands everything their colleagues do. In my experience everyone has an area of expertise.

I don't even remember how many billions of dollars have been spent searching for the Higgs Boson, and it might not even exist, but the assumption of its existence still provides good predictions.

Moral Two: Confirmation Bias (Primarily for Adults)

Confirmation bias is one of the most common and problematic biases people have to overcome, and that is the moral that Twilight's obstinate behavior exposes. Twilight spends all of her time looking for ways to prove her theory when she ought to have been looking for ways to disprove it. Anti-science folks frequently try to pull this trick, and to my dismay, it often trips people up who ought to know better. A Scientific Theory that cannot possibly be disproven is not a good Theory, a Theory is typically not a good scientific theory unless it is falsifiable. If you cannot conceive of a condition that your theory might be disproven, then chances are your theory is a Tautology -a type of circular logic that is necessarily true.

It is true that when testing a hypothesis, you have to establish some assumptions which may not be true in order to test it. ((I think the Large Hadron Collider might the result of the most financially expensive assumption ever.)) But when we're dealing with the unknown, it would be a huge mistake to discount results that do not fit the your expectations.

[brianblackberry]

What you wrote is a very good and thorough analysis of the episode, bravo! I cannot disagree with your definitions because they are most certainly correct.

So in Feeling Pinkie Keen we have an observable phenomenon that has a very reliable outcome. A Theory for how it works is NOT necessary for the descriptive observations to be accurate.

This is true, my concern is it may lead to the conclusion for some that there is no plausible explanation (it is supernatural), which is alright in Equestria, a land of magic, I just worry that it may wrongly lead to that same conclusion for the real universe. I suppose it all depends on how the parents interpret it and then explain their views to the children. Your view is spot on, I just worry that various anti-science bias in the adult audience may lead to the opposite conclusion; again though, this isn't the episode's fault.

[Dessa]

Good stuff. I wish I could add or argue, but you said it all right up there.

Oh! I can say: You remember that part where they were talking about Fluttershy exploding, and Pinkie wondered if she could explode twice? That was funny.

[Skye]

The thing that gets on my nerves more than anything, are people who dismiss scientific study on the grounds that it's only a 'theory'. But the thing is here, is that theory has two meanings. One is literary theory (where it can pretty much be indistinguishable from opinion and therefore naturally questionable) and scientific theory, which is essentially 'It is until it is proven otherwise' which is pretty much the same thing as a law in everything but the finite sense of the word. As you said, no theory ever became a law, and that's the way that science works.

But because some people see 'theory', they automatically dismiss it as irrelevant 'until hard facts come out' never once realizing or accepting that most theories are formed -because- of hard data that has supported them, and confuse a theory for a hypothesis. Of course, 'hypothesis' is too long and confusing a word for common people, and so it's not usually part of their general vocabulary.

I live by the following general codes that have worked out well enough for me:

Truth - A statement that has no requirement to be backed by factual or hard data. This includes things such as philosphy and opinions based on observations. I.E. Biblical Truth or more specifically ex: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Fact - A statement that is based on observable and reproduceable data. It is a fact that there is atmosphere, and what it is made of, 2+2=4, Light separates into spectrums when it is passed through certain materials, etc.

Opinion - A statement that is formed based on a personal experience, education, and situational awareness. This can often be flawed and should never in any form be taken as factual on their personal merit without being backed up. Opinions can be True without being factual. Opinions, because they are always in flux, should never be accepted without back up, nor should they be immediately dismissed without it either.

Axiom - That which is accepted as truth or factual until it is proven otherwise by data that has rendered it no longer relevant. Example: Space is infinite.

This works well enough for me, and has, thus far, been true enough in my life that I haven't had to think of it otherwise.

After all, remember, Gravity is only a theory too!

[Tam]

After all, remember, Gravity is only a theory too!

Not to be a pest, because this discussion is WAY over my head given how sick I am. But, Newton's "Law of Gravity" was just that - a law. But it was also superseded by Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".

[Skye]

After all, remember, Gravity is only a theory too!

Not to be a pest, because this discussion is WAY over my head given how sick I am. But, Newton's "Law of Gravity" was just that - a law. But it was also superseded by Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".

Well, there's a difference between Newton's Law of Gravity, and the theory behind Gravity, is what I meant. Superseded by Einstein's Theory does illustrate the point, though...that until something comes along and proves it otherwise, it's generally accepted as true, which is how science works.

[Ginger Mint]

hi hi

I would like to point out the correspondence principle. It essentially states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. So it isn't quite that something comes along to prove it otherwise, but you can add special cases that couldn't previously be confirmed by experiment.

[brianblackberry]

After all, remember, Gravity is only a theory too!

Not to be a pest, because this discussion is WAY over my head given how sick I am. But, Newton's "Law of Gravity" was just that - a law. But it was also superseded by Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".

Well, there's a difference between Newton's Law of Gravity, and the theory behind Gravity, is what I meant. Superseded by Einstein's Theory does illustrate the point, though...that until something comes along and proves it otherwise, it's generally accepted as true, which is how science works.

Newton's Law of Gravity, which is called Newton's law of Universal Gravitation, is in short, a statement of fact meant to concisely describe an action or set of actions. Laws are generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. In this particular case it is the fact: "every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

The difference here between law and theory, is the law describes a fact of gravity, in the above case involving mass and distance. A scientific theory of gravity would be the best explanation of why Newton's law of Universal Gravitation works, why does every object with mass attract every other object of mass.

In another way: A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity doesn't negate Newton's law of Universal Gravitation, but instead attempts to more precisely explain the how and why gravity works the way it does; Newton's law is still as true today as when he first wrote it.

[Skye]

Brian's explaination is far more complete than I was capable of. But suffice to say, it's certainly more complex than many people are willing to comprehend, and just because it's complex, doesn't mean it's invalid as the same people espouse. But throw in the word 'theory' and it unfortunately seems to throw question into the common mind that it's in question or in flux and undecided and therefore unproven or unsustainable and naturally their automatic conclusion is that it's wrong. Seems like far too many minds work like that, at least in my experience.

Kinda like using the word ignorant. It's not necessarily a bad thing to be or to call someone, as ignorance can be easily resolved, but some seem to believe that if you call them ignorant, you're labelling them with something they require retribution for, rather than resolve the ignorance - in short, punishing you for their shortcomings. People are such twitchy things.

[Manestream]

My brain is full of science now! It needs room for more ponies! Dx

[Teh_Brawler]

Well, now you've covered everything that I would have used.

I'm in complete agreement. I've never found faith and science to be mutually exclusive, simply because the difference between the two is how much evidence you have to support your theories.

[JabberwockyPie]

I'd like to point out that in SCIENCE, "theory" doesn't mean a "theory" the way we use it in the day to day. To rip off Wikipedia citing another source (Hush, I have a migraine. I don't have the energy to write it down properly.)

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Whereas we use "theory" to mean something a lot less concrete than that. I might say "I theorize that Twilight Sparkle is secretly Celestia's daughter" but that's not the same as a scientific theory.

Just to say where I'm coming from, I'm agnostic (in the sense that I like the idea of some kind of higher power, but I'm not overly bothered with deciding what it is and I accept that I can't PROVE anything). I thought the moral was more about not deciding something is impossible just because it's outside your experience and to stay open-minded. There are plenty of scientific things that people didn't understand because they didn't have the tools to measure and record and observe things because they hadn't been invented yet.

But then I mainly just like the episode for the hydra.

[MyLittlePonyTales]

My brain is full of science now! It needs room for more ponies! Dx

rlNw5ZuDYsk

[brianblackberry]

Well, now you've covered everything that I would have used.

I'm in complete agreement. I've never found faith and science to be mutually exclusive, simply because the difference between the two is how much evidence you have to support your theories.

In science, a theory needs a body of evidence to support it. A theory in science explains some observations in the material universe, and these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. If you cannot test these explanations or predictions, or they are not falsifiable, then it isn't a theory of science. Usually a theory is based on a long term body of work built over time on experimental observation and repeated testing by various people (if others cannot repeat your experiments using the same conditions and methods, then the theory also fails). Faith does not come into it, as it is all about what can be shown, measured, and repeated, not what is believed.

[Teh_Brawler]

Well, now you've covered everything that I would have used.

I'm in complete agreement. I've never found faith and science to be mutually exclusive, simply because the difference between the two is how much evidence you have to support your theories.

In science, a theory needs a body of evidence to support it. A theory in science explains some observations in the material universe, and these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. If you cannot test these explanations or predictions, or they are not falsifiable, then it isn't a theory of science. Usually a theory is based on a long term body of work built over time on experimental observation and repeated testing by various people (if others cannot repeat your experiments using the same conditions and methods, then the theory also fails). Faith does not come into it, as it is all about what can be shown, measured, and repeated, not what is believed.

I wouldn't completely agree with that, personally. While there is definitely a strong basis of evidence involved in science, there will also always be a level of faith involved in believing the theory to be correct. That faith may not be blind, but it still exists.

Take for example the theory that life has existed on Mars at one point or another. Multiple studies have been done to test if life is possible, which is centered around three ideas: the presence of heat, the presence of organics, and the presence of water, water being the most crucial. Scientists at this point have found two out of those three, the third being organics. As such, many scientists believe life has existed there. Do they have 100% definite proof of this? No. Will they ever? Who knows. And if they do find organics, will that give them definite proof? Of course not; the only way they would have 100% proof is if something living actually came into sight and proved itself to be living. And yet many scientists hold strongly to the idea of life on Mars simply from sources of water because they have faith.

A closer example to home would be gravity. In short, there is no defined source of gravity. No one knows how or why gravity exists. And yet gravity is an accepted idea in every day life. Why? Because when you jump up in the air, you come down again. But jumping up and coming down isn't definite proof that gravity exists, it's only an effect that means something is keeping us from floating away. And while we have no definite proof that gravity exists, we believe that it does, because we have seen results that match up with what gravity is supposed to do.

[Skye]

Well, now you've covered everything that I would have used.

I'm in complete agreement. I've never found faith and science to be mutually exclusive, simply because the difference between the two is how much evidence you have to support your theories.

In science, a theory needs a body of evidence to support it. A theory in science explains some observations in the material universe, and these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. If you cannot test these explanations or predictions, or they are not falsifiable, then it isn't a theory of science. Usually a theory is based on a long term body of work built over time on experimental observation and repeated testing by various people (if others cannot repeat your experiments using the same conditions and methods, then the theory also fails). Faith does not come into it, as it is all about what can be shown, measured, and repeated, not what is believed.

I wouldn't completely agree with that, personally. While there is definitely a strong basis of evidence involved in science, there will also always be a level of faith involved in believing the theory to be correct. That faith may not be blind, but it still exists.

Take for example the theory that life has existed on Mars at one point or another. Multiple studies have been done to test if life is possible, which is centered around three ideas: the presence of heat, the presence of organics, and the presence of water, water being the most crucial. Scientists at this point have found two out of those three, the third being organics. As such, many scientists believe life has existed there. Do they have 100% definite proof of this? No. Will they ever? Who knows. And if they do find organics, will that give them definite proof? Of course not; the only way they would have 100% proof is if something living actually came into sight and proved itself to be living. And yet many scientists hold strongly to the idea of life on Mars simply from sources of water because they have faith.

A closer example to home would be gravity. In short, there is no defined source of gravity. No one knows how or why gravity exists. And yet gravity is an accepted idea in every day life. Why? Because when you jump up in the air, you come down again. But jumping up and coming down isn't definite proof that gravity exists, it's only an effect that means something is keeping us from floating away. And while we have no definite proof that gravity exists, we believe that it does, because we have seen results that match up with what gravity is supposed to do.

I'm preeeeeeeeeetty sure they've discovered bacterial remains in rocks on the surface of Mars, that there was life -once- on Mars, but it's been long long since gone. No currently -alive- life, that I'm aware of, though. Of course, I could be wrong.

[Ginger Mint]

hi hi

Take for example the theory that life has existed on Mars at one point or another.

You're confusing the two definitions of theory here. What people normally refer to as a theory in everyday conversation, scientists call a hypothesis. A scientific theory is something else.

[Teh_Brawler]

I'm preeeeeeeeeetty sure they've discovered bacterial remains in rocks on the surface of Mars, that there was life -once- on Mars, but it's been long long since gone. No currently -alive- life, that I'm aware of, though. Of course, I could be wrong.

Really? I feel like it would have been broadcast more, but I could be wrong.

hi hi

Take for example the theory that life has existed on Mars at one point or another.

You're confusing the two definitions of theory here. What people normally refer to as a theory in everyday conversation, scientists call a hypothesis. A scientific theory is something else.

Fair enough, but I feel like my point still stands.

[brianblackberry]

Take for example the theory that life has existed on Mars at one point or another. Multiple studies have been done to test if life is possible, which is centered around three ideas: the presence of heat, the presence of organics, and the presence of water, water being the most crucial. Scientists at this point have found two out of those three, the third being organics. As such, many scientists believe life has existed there. Do they have 100% definite proof of this? No. Will they ever? Who knows. And if they do find organics, will that give them definite proof? Of course not; the only way they would have 100% proof is if something living actually came into sight and proved itself to be living. And yet many scientists hold strongly to the idea of life on Mars simply from sources of water because they have faith.

There is a couple things wrong here. First, you are not describing a theory of science, you are describing a hypothesis in science. Scientists observe that Mars holds evidence of the possibility of past life, mostly due to the observations and evidence it once had surface water. From this the hypothesis is created that Mars may have had life. A prediction is made on this hypothesis, that there are the remains of past microbial life in the soil. In order for "past life on Mars" to become a theory, experiments would need to be performed that show the prediction to be correct, and then the experiments have to be independently repeated by others and those results have to show the same evidence and thus conclusions. Only then would you have a theory, when clear evidence shows such life existed, and thus no faith is needed, otherwise its either still a hypothesis or shown to be completely falsified.

Also 100% proof, that only exists in mathematics. Any theory in science has the possibility of being falsified, or show not true, with future experimentation and observation, therefore no theory is 100% absolute.

A closer example to home would be gravity. In short, there is no defined source of gravity. No one knows how or why gravity exists. And yet gravity is an accepted idea in every day life. Why? Because when you jump up in the air, you come down again. But jumping up and coming down isn't definite proof that gravity exists, it's only an effect that means something is keeping us from floating away. And while we have no definite proof that gravity exists, we believe that it does, because we have seen results that match up with what gravity is supposed to do.

Because we have laws of gravity, which are repeatedly observed phenomena that can be measured, such as Newton's Law of Gravity, which is a mathematical formula can show to always be true through experimentation. We know it exists because of the observed effects. A theory is an explanation of why gravity works, not that it exists.

[brianblackberry]

I'm preeeeeeeeeetty sure they've discovered bacterial remains in rocks on the surface of Mars, that there was life -once- on Mars, but it's been long long since gone. No currently -alive- life, that I'm aware of, though. Of course, I could be wrong.

Nope, we haven't found any evidence yet of actual fossilized remains of any sort of life whatsoever yet on Mars.

[Skye]

I'm preeeeeeeeeetty sure they've discovered bacterial remains in rocks on the surface of Mars, that there was life -once- on Mars, but it's been long long since gone. No currently -alive- life, that I'm aware of, though. Of course, I could be wrong.

Nope, we haven't found any evidence yet of actual fossilized remains of any sort of life whatsoever yet on Mars.

Ah, well there was this article that I maybe saw, and others like it that suggested there had been and I was fairly certain I'd read an article that one of the landers they'd sent up had discovered some as well, but finding an article amongst the drek can be hard sometimes.

[Teh_Brawler]

I'm beginning to feel that this may be getting a little heated, so for the sake of the community, I say that, for now, we should just agree to disagree. However, if you'd like to continue this in a PM, I'd be more than happy to keep discussing it.

[brianblackberry]

IAh, well there was this article that I maybe saw, and others like it that suggested there had been and I was fairly certain I'd read an article that one of the landers they'd sent up had discovered some as well, but finding an article amongst the drek can be hard sometimes.

Sadly this is an example of poor reporting by the media who plastered on their article title, "Bacteria from Mars found inside ancient meteorite", when in fact there is no bacteria. It was the opinion of the scientist who studied the meteor that features discovered within make look like bacteria, however scientifically their is yet sufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion. The media often mixes opinion with evidence and that is why we get headlines like above.

The claims are interesting, the pictures intriguing, but we are a long, long way from knowing whether the claim is valid or not. Sadly the chances that the meteorite has been contaminated by terrestrial bacteria (if its indeed bacteria) is much greater than any Martian life, all things being equal.

[brianblackberry]

I'm beginning to feel that this may be getting a little heated, so for the sake of the community, I say that, for now, we should just agree to disagree. However, if you'd like to continue this in a PM, I'd be more than happy to keep discussing it.

That's cool, although I didn't think it was heated at all.

[Teh_Brawler]

I'm beginning to feel that this may be getting a little heated, so for the sake of the community, I say that, for now, we should just agree to disagree. However, if you'd like to continue this in a PM, I'd be more than happy to keep discussing it.

That's cool, although I didn't think it was heated at all.

Then I am terrible at interpreting emotion through text.