Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 46 of 70 (443553)
12-25-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
12-25-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Fasified
Given that Ned and I are referencing different theories, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion!
And which theory was do you think Ned was referencing, here Message 35?
NoseyNed writes:
No, how foolish would that be! We don't overturn a well supported theory based on a mystery. We have to dig into the mystery first.
There are multiple competing explanations for the anomaly. If some turn out to be right gravity will be falsified. It will almost certainly be falsified in the same why the general relativity falsified Newtonian mechanics though. Even falsified as shadings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2007 4:06 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2007 4:28 PM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 12-25-2007 5:39 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 70 (443554)
12-25-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Tossing out Gravity
sinequanon writes:
Dark matter has not been verified. It has no validity beyond plugging the hole in gravitational theory. You are turning invalidity of one theory into evidence of itself + some total unknown called dark matter.
Dark matter has been verified by its effect on both the structure of galaxies and on the path of light passing nearby. There are two popular proposals for the nature of dark matter, MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) and WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles). WIMPs seem to have the upper hand in scientific circles these days, but who knows how it will come out.
The possibility you mention that the phenomena currently interpreted as caused by dark matter is actually due to some other new physics cannot be dismissed out of hand, but it isn't being seriously entertained at present. If as research into dark matter continues the current hypotheses of MACHOs and/or WIMPs do not hold up then you can expect your own preferred alternative to receive more attention.
Creationists use this tactic, too. When all is lost, "the holy book was right all along, but we should have interpreted it like this way, instead!".
The history of science does reveal a certain amount of inertia that causes newly discovered phenomena to be interpreted within the framework of older theories. This was certainly true of Einsteinian general relativity, where many physicists insisted on trying to shoehorn Einsteinian effects into a Newtonian framework. Such conservative behavior is just part of human nature.
I don't myself see any analogy with creationism, largely because creationism is not based upon observation and study of natural phenomenon, and because unlike Newtonian physics as it was replaced by Einsteinian physics it has no history of validated predictions with replication.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:02 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 70 (443555)
12-25-2007 4:21 PM


Today's Christmas hip tip:
We're now on a third page of short one-point-at-a-time posts that compose a barely coherent conversation.
When the message board degenerates into a real-time chat room, that's usually a pretty good sign that it's time to log off for an hour and think over how you really want to respond.

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 70 (443556)
12-25-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Fasified
And which theory was do you think Ned was referencing, here
Have you been at the sherry? You're obviously operating well below capacity...
Ned was obviously referencing GR/modern cosmology, evidenced by his statement:
quote:
No, how foolish would that be! We don't overturn a well supported theory based on a mystery. We have to dig into the mystery first.
There are multiple competing explanations for the anomaly. If some turn out to be right gravity will be falsified. It will almost certainly be falsified in the same why the general relativity falsified Newtonian mechanics though. Even falsified as shadings.
  —NosyNed
I was obviously referencing Newtonian gravity, evidenced by my statement:
quote:
Ah, that one - well it was "falsified" and replaced 92 years ago. Of course it's still good enough for most applications, as long as you are aware of its status.
  —cavediver
I'd make it an early night, if I were you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:18 PM sinequanon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-25-2007 6:37 PM cavediver has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 50 of 70 (443557)
12-25-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
12-25-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Fasified
I think it might be best if you tried thinking this one through on your own, but I'll provide a couple hints. First, Cavediver and NosyNed do not see their statements as being in disagreement. Second, two different people are most unlikely to ever express the same concept in identical language, or even from the same perspective.
Strange second hint, given that cavediver maintains they were talking of different things. Are you trying "proof by closing ranks"?
We strongly suspect that Einstein's theories will prove to be incomplete, but given that the validations have already taken place it's impossible to imagine how Einstein's theories could actually be wrong about the precession of Mercury's orbit or the deflection of light by gravity or the relativistic effects of spinning masses to the accuracy available today.
Well, I hope you also accept the proof, "it is impossible to imagine otherwise", from creationists and everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 4:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 4:42 PM sinequanon has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 51 of 70 (443558)
12-25-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
12-25-2007 4:20 PM


Re: Tossing out Gravity
All you have is a effect no one understands. Until you demonstrate your MACHOs and WIMPs in the laboratory, you do not have a valid theory. You don't accept "God exists" as verified just because it explains some effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 4:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 4:54 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 70 (443559)
12-25-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:28 PM


Re: Fasified
sinequanon writes:
I think it might be best if you tried thinking this one through on your own, but I'll provide a couple hints. First, Cavediver and NosyNed do not see their statements as being in disagreement. Second, two different people are most unlikely to ever express the same concept in identical language, or even from the same perspective.
Strange second hint, given that cavediver maintains they were talking of different things. Are you trying "proof by closing ranks"?
Cavediver and NosyNed were focused on two different theories, primarily because when you started out you weren't clear whether you were talking about Newtonian or Einsteinian physics, but they were making the identical point about falsification.
We strongly suspect that Einstein's theories will prove to be incomplete, but given that the validations have already taken place it's impossible to imagine how Einstein's theories could actually be wrong about the precession of Mercury's orbit or the deflection of light by gravity or the relativistic effects of spinning masses to the accuracy available today.
Well, I hope you also accept the proof, "it is impossible to imagine otherwise", from creationists and everyone else.
Einsteinian physics has a record of successful predictions that have been replicated many times, and this record of success is part of history. There's no way to change the past that I can imagine. Creationism has no record of successful predictions, and of course no replications since there's no successful experiments to replicate, so it is very easy to imagine the falsification of Creationism, and of course it's already been falsified many times even as just a working hypothesis.
But I sense we're drifting off the topic now, which is the scientific method. You seemed to be interested in understanding falsification at first, a key part of the scientific method (verifying hypotheses), but you seem to be focusing increasing amounts of attention on defenses of creationism, and I don't know why since no one else is mentioning creationism except you. If you're truly interested in falsification, I think that's much more on topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:28 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 5:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 70 (443561)
12-25-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Tossing out Gravity
sinequanon writes:
All you have is a effect no one understands. Until you demonstrate your MACHOs and WIMPs in the laboratory, you do not have a valid theory.
I would agree with that. What we have at present concerning dark matter are hypotheses.
Science operates under the presupposition that we do not know everything. This means that our theories must always be considered potentially incomplete, possibly even wrong, since there's always the possibility of discovering some new phenomena that our current theories do not explain. When new phenomena are discovered there is always a period of exploration of how well they fit with existing theory. If existing theory is found to be incomplete then that is no surprise since we were already operating under the presupposition that existing theories are likely incomplete.
If existing theory is actually discovered to be wrong then that would be quite an indictment of the scientific process since it would mean that insufficient testing and replication of tests of the theory were performed. I'm trying to think of a theory that fits this category, and I think Freud's id/ego/superego theories might qualify. Certainly that very early period of the science of psychoanalysis was dominated far more by personality than science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:41 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 54 of 70 (443562)
12-25-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
12-25-2007 4:42 PM


Re: Fasified
There is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequence. It goes like this:
Premise 1 If A, then B
Premise 2 B.
Conclusion Therefore A.
Premise 1 If dark matter exists, then gravity explains the observed distribution of matter in the universe.
Premise 2 Gravity explains the observed distribution of matter in the universe.
Conclusion Therefore dark matter exists.
This is what is going on. What other reason is there for dark matter. Premise 2 and conclusion, two shaky statements, justify each other. Refer to either one and claim it is "backed up" by the other one.
Newtonian mechanics and GR don't predict the correct spread of matter in the universe. Whatever choice there is a red herring.
I would agree with that. What we have at present concerning dark matter are hypotheses.
No. Dark matter IS the hypothesis. What you have is a problem with the gravitational effect of matter.
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 4:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 6:50 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 70 (443565)
12-25-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:18 PM


I'm a little confused too. Ned says that the current theory of gravity might be falsified; almost certainly in the same way that relativity falsified Newtonian mechanics.
cavediver said that the Newtonian law of gravity was "falsified", but not entirely thrown out since it is still accurate enough in most situations.
The two statements don't disagree. They both referenced Newton's work being overturned by Einstein's - and that the overturning wasn't so much an erasing of the old, but more of a 'filling out' of the old. Ned goes on to say that this is the most likely future of our current theory of gravity (should it be ever be shown to be erroneous).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:18 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 70 (443571)
12-25-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 12:24 PM


Now that I can get a word in edgewise....
Most of what you have said here has been responded to by others; I'm not sure whether it'll be productive to repeat what has been said, but I will give a few of my thoughts that I intended when I first read this post.
-
but instead it was hypothesized that an as yet unknown planet was causing perturbations in Uranus' orbit -- sort of a 19th century version of "dark matter".
Not quite. In your example of Uranus, no "new" science is being proposed. The adequacy of the law is truly being tested.
"Dark matter", on the other hand is very much about banking on "new" science.
Sure, but dark matter is really no new science, either, not really. When it was observed that the rotation of the galaxies and their movements within clusters couldn't be explained by means of gravity, it was hypothesized that there was matter that we cannot see -- just like a previously unseen planet was hypothesized to explain the anomalies of the orbit of Uranus. We know that mass has a gravitational effect that can influence the motion of other matter -- it's not new science to assume that it's a matter of as yet unseen matter that is causing the discrepancies in the motions of the galaxies -- indeed, this is actually pretty old science.
Incidentally, dark matter isn't a completely out of the blue idea. It turns out that astrophysicists can model the motions of the galaxies by using a cetain distribution of matter -- there was no guarantee that this would work. It could have been that no distribution of matter would have provided the right gravitational forces to explain the discrepancies in the motions of the galaxies; that there is a way of distributing matter to account for the motions is itself evidence that this might be correct. It would be good, of course, to find out exactly what this dark matter is (if it indeed exists), but astrophysicists are working on this right now.
-
Let's now look at a different anomaly, namely the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury that were known at the beginning of the 20th century. This couldn't be explained with the science as it was known at that time. Some people did believe that Newton's Law of Gravity had to be modified -- there were attempts to explain Mercury's orbit with a law of gravity that wasn't quite inverse square. Finally, Newton's Law of Gravity was replaced -- by General Relativity which was originally formulated by Einstein for entirely other reasons, but which turned out to be able to explain Mercury's orbit. So we did have a falsification of Newton's Law of Gravity -- namely by replacing it with a theory that explained everything that Newton could explain, but also explained things that Newton could not.
We may be in a similar situation in regards to so-called dark energy. It appears that rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This is, indeed, new science, but it is not new science made up to support an old theory, but new science that is indicated by observation. It is an observational fact that the expansion of the universe is increasing. So we can't escape from this new science.
The question is what is causing this. "Dark energy" is the label used to refer to this, but its nature is still a mystery. All we know is that something is causing this expansion. This expansion can be modeled (within observational accuracy, that is) by including an extra term in the equations of General Relativity. But so far it is still unknown whether this is because this increasing expansion is a fundamental fact about our universe, as indicated by the "improved" General Relativity equations, or whether there is some other cause for this expansion which is "accidentally" modeled by this slight modification to GR. But no one is just proposing these things as a way of "avoiding" throwing out a theory -- they are actively trying to understand it, and it may very well be that GR will have to be modified or replaced by a better theory.
-
In fact, we already know that there will have to be a replacement. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are, right now, inconsistent with one another. So General Relativity is, in a sense, already falsified, and everyone acknowledges it. This is what research in so-called "quantum gravity" is all about -- to come up with a new theory of gravity that will be consistent with quantum mechanics. No one is trying to save the old theory of gravity -- indeed, people are actively trying to find a better theory with which to replace it.
-
My apologies to cavediver and Son Goku for any errors or oversimplifications in this post.

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 12:24 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 70 (443572)
12-25-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Gravity in crisis?
I added (4) because I believe it actually happens in practice.
That you believe it has no bearing on whether it actually happens or not. So far you have not shown that it has. Your example of Newton's "law" of gravity doesn't work because it is now relegated to a set of evidence where it is close enough for all practical work, and it is considered invalid\falsified outside those bounds.
If a new theory comes along that explains dark stuff effects then the same will happen to Relativity.
Message 33
Let me try this:
{A} is the evidence that is explained by Newton's "law" (a theory)
(B) is the evidence that is explained by Einstein's Relativity (a theory)
Everything in {A} is explained with sufficient accuracy by Newton's law, and everything in {B} is explained with sufficient accuracy by Einstein's Relativity, including everything in {A}. Newton's law is valid within {A} but it has been invalidated outside {A} and is not used there. A new law of gravity must also explain {A} and {B} in ways that Newton will still be valid in {A} and Einstein's Relativity will still be valid in {B} (although {A} and {B} may need to be redefined), and we will have a new bounded set {C} that is explained by the new theory that includes areas where both Newton and Einstein are invalid, and redefined to be limited to {A'} and {B'} respectively.
That pretty well applies to all theories, where new information supersedes previous theory, but the theory is still valid for the old information.
OK, so each "law" has a domain of applicability.
Every theory has a "domain of applicability" and it is part of the definition of the theory (field, subfield, effect, etc)
Would you accept a spiritualist's argument that your laboratory lies outside the domain of applicability of their powers?
Only if I'm not studying the powers of spiritualists or anything supposedly affected by them.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 3:37 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 70 (443573)
12-25-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
12-25-2007 4:28 PM


Question about UK maths:
Hey, cavediver, I have a question about the teaching of college level mathematics in the UK.
sinequanon has already shown some confusion about what should be elementary mathematics. Is it really the case that geometry series, in particular, the geometric series test and the formula
sum from 0 to infinity of rn = 1/(1-r) if |r|< 1
isn't covered in a basic calculus or analysis course?

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2007 4:28 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2007 7:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 70 (443575)
12-25-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 5:08 PM


Re: Fasified
You're advancing your own false premises so you can knock them down? What's the point?
The behavior of light passing by galaxies and the structures of galaxies themselves can be explained by the presence of a halo of matter surrounding galaxies that aside from gravitational effects we have not so far been able to detect. Other explanations are possible but not being actively explored at this time that I'm aware of.
Similar to the situation with dark matter, Neptune was discovered by way of its gravitational effects on Uranus. Noting that with Neptune we trained our telescopes on the spot and found it but with dark matter we see nothing, you believe there's actually nothing there and that the hypothesized dark matter is a chimera and general relativity wrong.
Maybe you're right, who knows, but the usual process of science is to do the research first, then arrive at the conclusions after the evidence is in. You seem to want to reach the conclusions first, discard the theory, then just forget about the research.
Don't forget that at present general relativity fits all the data. Given the huge numbers of particles that pass through the earth every day almost completely undetected, such as neutrinos, and given that we haven't discovered all the particles predicted by the standard model, such as the Higgs Boson which is thought to be omnipresent and mediate the gravitational force despite the fact that we haven't detected it yet, it is no wonder that the cosmological and particle physics communities do not have much of a problem with invisible matter.
One interesting recent discovery concerning dark matter is a region of dark matter that isn't in a halo around a galaxy, indeed, that isn't even associated with a galaxy. Two galaxies collided, and the momentum of their halos of dark matter caused the dark matter to end up in one location, and the galaxies in another. This would argue against the need for modifications to general relativity.
I would agree with that. What we have at present concerning dark matter are hypotheses.
No. Dark matter IS the hypothesis. What you have is a problem with the gravitational effect of matter.
Yes, of course, dark matter is itself a hypothesis.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 5:08 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 70 (443578)
12-25-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
12-25-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Question about UK maths:
Hey, cavediver, I have a question about the teaching of college level mathematics in the UK.
As you can imagine, it took a major nose-dive once I left
At Cambridge, analysis is covered in a Part IA course (1st year) and is very thorough. I can't give you specifics because, as I've mentioned before, I despise analysis. What disturbs me is Sinequanon's lack of even basic cosmological terminology. Sadly, it is possible these days to complete the entire Tripos without encountering a single 'physics' course. In my early days, Mathematics of EM was a compulsory 16 lecture Part IB course. I was on the review board for this course, and strongly suggested making it a compulsory 24 lecture course, given the depth and content (about double that of a standard university's 20-24 lecture course!) and the fact that many struggled and were being put off physics-based mathematics. The result was that it became an optional 24 lecture course and we can see the outcome in Sinequanon's posts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-25-2007 6:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:10 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024