Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 46 of 249 (234674)
08-18-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
08-18-2005 8:20 PM


Re: Not truth but Accuracy
That's not correct. Einstein's relativistic physics as fully superseded Newtonian physics. It is true that there are only narrow specialized circumstances where the difference is large enough to matter, and thus we continue to use the simpler equations.
You say its not correct then you move forward and agree with my post anyway. Einstein physics has not superceded Newtonian physics. Supercede means to cause to be set aside, especially to displace as inferior or antiquated, to replace. Newtonian physics has NOT been replaced in the vast majority of applications, it is used far more frequently that Einstein’s physics.
It is inferior to Einsteinian physics only under special circumstances. Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used much more frequently by a larger number of people than Einsteinian physics?
Monk writes:
My point is that we do indeed accept and continue to use Newtonian physics.
nwr writes:
That's not quite correct.
I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, Newtonian physics is accepted and continues to be used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 08-18-2005 8:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 08-18-2005 9:26 PM Monk has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 47 of 249 (234685)
08-18-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Monk
08-18-2005 8:56 PM


Re: Not truth but Accuracy
Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used much more frequently by a larger number of people than Einsteinian physics?
Newtonian physics is used in practice only, but certainly not in theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Monk, posted 08-18-2005 8:56 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Monk, posted 08-18-2005 10:35 PM nwr has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 48 of 249 (234697)
08-18-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
08-18-2005 9:26 PM


Re: Not truth but Accuracy
Newtonian physics is used in practice only, but certainly not in theory.
Now you begin to understand why I claim that Newtonian physics has not been superseded and continues to be widely accepted and used. It helps to understand that theoretical physicists are not the only group of professionals who routinely use physical theories. Scientist develop the theories and engineers put them into practice. So when it comes to the practical side of life, Newtonian physics is much more frequently used compared to Einstenian physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 08-18-2005 9:26 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2005 12:40 AM Monk has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 249 (234704)
08-19-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Monk
08-18-2005 10:35 PM


This is getting silly
Remember I pointed out the two different parts of this?
The understanding of the nature of our universe?
Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that!
GR -- less wrong, maybe right.
The calculations:
If you want to get really nitpicky about it we are always using GR. We are just using simplified calculations that we know is ok for some circumatances. These happen to, in these circumstances, be exactly those of Newtonian physics. But it is GR that tells us if and when the simpler form is acceptable to use.
Geez, I find it amazing that we would argue about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Monk, posted 08-18-2005 10:35 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 10:39 AM NosyNed has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 50 of 249 (234712)
08-19-2005 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rahvin
08-17-2005 2:34 PM


Rahvin writes:
Creation says "Goddidit," which is obviously not a mechanism at all. A scientific theory would examine how. Creationism is, at it's heart, a statement of "we give up, we can't possibly understand." That's what "Goddidit" means. This is contrary to everything science holds true.
Agreed. However, a question: What would it be called when you're at 'someone did it'? For example, there's a glass on my desk. How did it get there? Well, somebody put it there.
Can't be falsified, as there's at least one person (me) with the means, motive, and opportunity. Try to come up with a naturalistic explanation, and you'll fail miserably. Is this unscientific, though? It makes no useful predictions, cannot be falsified, and, besides the 'who', it is the end of further inquiry.
And yes, it's not the same, as both the hypothesized agent and method are proven to exist; but still, is it scientific?
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-19-2005 02:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-17-2005 2:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Ooook!, posted 08-19-2005 5:07 AM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 08-19-2005 11:49 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 51 of 249 (234725)
08-19-2005 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by DominionSeraph
08-19-2005 2:21 AM


ToG
Hi DS,
However, a question: What would it be called when you're at 'someone did it'? For example, there's a glass on my desk. How did it get there? Well, somebody put it there.
This kind of analogy actually demonstrates quite well one of the main reasons why I think ID is nowhere near scientific in it's approach to evidence. If you had sufficient motivation you could go around collecting and analysing evidence and trying to find out how a glass of water did get to be on my desk:
Where did the water come from?
"The cold water tap is still running"
Who could have filled the glass?
"My friend Bert was seen in the vacinity of the sink a few minutes ago."
How could it have 'appeared' on my desk?
"I just popped out of the room for a while. Bert had the time to carry the glass of water over here."
Why would Bert do that?
"Well I did say that I was hot and thirsty a while ago, and there's a similar glass of water on Bert's desk. Oh look ice!"
That's what science does at a crude level - it asks questions and keeps on asking questions. ID proponents find something that they think is designed and then stop. No need to define the designer, no need to enquire about it's motives, no need to provide evidence that a possible designer actually exists. Goddidit! No more questions.
So (he says torturously extending the analogy - sorry) if:
  1. We can't show that Bert exists
  2. I never asked for this glass of water
  3. There is quite a lot of evidence of an automatic cold water delivery system
Then I see no reason to bring Bert into the Theory of Glass(ToG).
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 19-08-2005 10:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-19-2005 2:21 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-22-2005 7:19 AM Ooook! has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 52 of 249 (234782)
08-19-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
08-19-2005 12:40 AM


Re: This is getting silly
Geez, I find it amazing that we would argue about this.
Yes Ned I find it amazing also. I thought for sure that my last post #48 would have made my point clear but then you reply with Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that!. I simply do not get it. I don’t think you read post 48 very closely. I’ll try one more time.
Lets start by setting aside all work being done by theoretical physicists. Ok?, Just set aside that group of individuals and the work they do. Now consider all other groups of people in the entire world involved in technical professions. That would include engineers, production managers, analysts, technicians, construction contractors, etc.
This group of people may work for corporations both large and small or a whole variety of governmental agencies. Now stay with me here. Of that group, there will be a significant percentage that routinely use Newtonian physics. They use those theories to develop all sorts of products, projects, systems, etc. They turn Newtonian theories into practical reality for all of us. That group of individuals would not consider Newtonian physics to have been superseded, antiquated, or otherwise necessary for replacement with Einstenian physics.
To that group, Newtonian physics continues to be widely used and accepted. To that group, Newtonian physics is used much more frequently than Einstenian physics. There are a few exceptions of course and you mentioned a few isolated cases, space craft navigation systems and GPS products.
Now consider the group of theoretical physicists. That group may set aside Newtonian physics in favor of Einstenian physics depending on their particular area of research or they may not if Newtonian physics provides sufficiently accurate answers for the problems at hand.
Now comparing the two groups; theoretical physicists and everybody else who uses Newtonian physics, The group that routinely use and accept Newtonian physics is far larger than the group that does not. For this reason, my assertion in message 48 stands, when it comes to the practical side of life, Newtonian physics is much more frequently used compared to Einstenian physics.
If you want to get really nitpicky about it we are always using GR. We are just using simplified calculations that we know is ok for some circumstances. These happen to, in these circumstances, be exactly those of Newtonian physics. But it is GR that tells us if and when the simpler form is acceptable to use.
Yes, I want to get real nitpicky because the difference of opinion is in the nitpick. In this statement you use the term we. By that I assume you refer to theoretical physicists. But the other we I referred to above and in message 48 do not use GR nor is it necessary for them to even consider it. Those Newtonian theorems were widely used and accepted long before GR and that continues to be the case. GR didn’t change anything for the vast majority of people who use the theorems of Newtonian physics on a daily basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2005 12:40 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2005 12:55 PM Monk has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 53 of 249 (234814)
08-19-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by DominionSeraph
08-19-2005 2:21 AM


I think Ooook! responded to this quite well.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-19-2005 2:21 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 249 (234830)
08-19-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Monk
08-19-2005 10:39 AM


the nature of everything
This group of people may work for corporations both large and small or a whole variety of governmental agencies. Now stay with me here. Of that group, there will be a significant percentage that routinely use Newtonian physics. They use those theories to develop all sorts of products, projects, systems, etc. They turn Newtonian theories into practical reality for all of us. That group of individuals would not consider Newtonian physics to have been superseded, antiquated, or otherwise necessary for replacement with Einstenian physics.
As a description of the nature of the universe Newtonian physics has been completely replaced for everyone. GR is a fundamentally different description of the nature of reality.
Using some formulae for calculating things is the other aspect of physics. The calculations using Newton's laws still work "well enough". "Well enough" is not the same as absolutely right. "Well enough" means the error is small enough to ignore. However, the error is there. In that nitpicky sense Newtonian physics is known to be wrong.
It doesn't matter in day to day use for many people as you note. It doesn't change the fact the GR overturned our understanding of the universe and the the theoretical underpinnings of Newton's formulae are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 10:39 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 1:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 55 of 249 (234834)
08-19-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NosyNed
08-19-2005 12:55 PM


Re: the nature of theory vs practice
***sigh***

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2005 12:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by John, posted 08-19-2005 1:33 PM Monk has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 249 (234845)
08-19-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
08-19-2005 1:11 PM


Why "Sigh"? I am confused.
Monk, it looks to me like you and Ned are saying the same thing, except that you disagree on the meaning of 'supercede.'
You claim that Newtonian physics is used a great deal in various sciences. It is. Ned agrees, as far as I can tell. Newtonian physics is used because, as it seems Ned argues, the math is much simpler and the answers are so close that it doesn't matter that there is a small error. Good so far?
Still, were our instruments sensitive enough to detect it and our computers fast enough to do the math, Newtonian physics would always lose to GR. Do you deny that?
If so, you stand opposed to the general concensus of modern physics. Even those using Newton's formulas will tell you that were more accuracy required they'd have to used Einstein's math.
If not, how is it that you can argue that a theory which always gives a less accurate answer has the same footing as a theory that always gives a more accurate answer?

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 1:11 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 3:12 PM John has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 249 (234846)
08-19-2005 1:38 PM


Is it just me, or does the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics have nothing to do with the topic of this thread?
Don't mean to be presumptuous, but shouldn't this topic have a thread of its own?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2005 1:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 249 (234851)
08-19-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
08-19-2005 1:38 PM


topic?
Yea, you're right, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 08-19-2005 1:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 59 of 249 (234877)
08-19-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by John
08-19-2005 1:33 PM


Re: Why "Sigh"? I am confused.
Since I had already started a response and since I don't believe there enough here for a new topic, I hope everyone doesn't mind if I squeeze it in as my last post on the Einstein vs Newtonian discussion.
Monk, it looks to me like you and Ned are saying the same thing, except that you disagree on the meaning of 'supersede.'
Yes, we are saying the same thing but there seems to be confusion on both the meaning and the application of the term supersede. The confusion is theory vs practice.
I have not disputed that Einstein’s physics gives more accurate results. I tried to agree with Ned about the accuracy in message 43 when I said:
Monk in message 43 writes:
I think we are dancing around the same point of view. Accuracy
Einsteinian physics has its applications under very, very narrow and specialized circumstances. The vast majority of traditional physics gets along quite well without it. As such, I don’t believe Einsteinian physics will replace the use of traditional physics in the vast majority of practical applications at any point in the foreseeable future.
My initial objection in this thread was to nwr who said that we don't accept Newtonian physics anymore because it has been replaced with something better, (quantum physics).
My point is that we do indeed accept and continue to use Newtonian physics. It has not been replaced except under very specialized circumstances. I didn't intend to be such an ardent supporter of Newton, it just turned out that way. And I’m not minimizing Einstein’s contributions, but I believe Newton’s are equally significant.
Notice here I wasn’t arguing the accuracy of Newtonian physics. Also note my use of the term applications when I said, Einsteinian physics has its applications under very, very narrow and specialized circumstances. I wasn’t referring to theory, I was referring to its actual use or application in the world.
I said Einstenian physics will not replace the use of traditional physics in the vast majority of practical applications, which I believe to be true. Practical applications, not theory.
Having set the base position in practical applications in the first paragraph of this message, I then went on to note my objection to nwr who said we don’t accept Newtonian physics because it has been replaced by quantum physics. Again there is a big difference between theory and practice. In theory that may be true, but quantum mechanics will not replace Newtonian physics in common practice.
You claim that Newtonian physics is used a great deal in various sciences. It is. Ned agrees, as far as I can tell. Newtonian physics is used because, as it seems Ned argues, the math is much simpler and the answers are so close that it doesn't matter that there is a small error. Good so far?
No. Newtonian physics is used in common practice because it has been proven by experimentation countless times long before GR. You could say that the use of Newtonian physics in practice has been validated by Einstenian physics because the deviation between the two is so infinitesimal.
If GR had proven to have a significant impact, then Newtonian physics would have given way to GR in common practice as it has in a few cases which I have already noted, but not in the majority of situations.
Still, were our instruments sensitive enough to detect it and our computers fast enough to do the math, Newtonian physics would always lose to GR. Do you deny that?
In the theoretical sense it looses to GR every time. In a practical sense, it rarely looses. Again, I have never argued accuracy.
If not, how is it that you can argue that a theory which always gives a less accurate answer has the same footing as a theory that always gives a more accurate answer?
Newtonian physics has a better footing than Einstenian physics in the practical world despite it giving less accurate answers. I tried to make the point again about theory vs practice in Message 48:
Now you begin to understand why I claim that Newtonian physics has not been superseded and continues to be widely accepted and used. It helps to understand that theoretical physicists are not the only group of professionals who routinely use physical theories. Scientist develop the theories and engineers put them into practice. So when it comes to the practical side of life, Newtonian physics is much more frequently used compared to Einstenian physics.
In this post I was trying to annunciate the difference between the work of theoretical physicists and all other professionals who use Newtonian physics instead of Einstenian physics, but my point fell on deaf ears when Ned replied, Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that! His entire response was based on theory and more specifically accuracy which has never been in dispute.
As I noted in the subtitle previously It’s the nature of theory vs practice.
And so we are back to ***sigh***
Last word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by John, posted 08-19-2005 1:33 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 3:40 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 61 by John, posted 08-19-2005 4:07 PM Monk has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 60 of 249 (234885)
08-19-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Monk
08-19-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Why "Sigh"? I am confused.
I was told at Cornell that Kuhn was telling everyone that gravity itself actually changed with Einstein(beyond Newton). Realists had a hard time with that succession and I decided then that philosophers of science know too much for their own good. I would rather count angels on the head of a pin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 3:12 PM Monk has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024