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 Man Behind the Curtain
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 31 (616267)
05-20-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
05-20-2011 2:24 PM


Re: Reformulating the Premise
That's far too abstract. It isn't clear that it has anything to do with science.
Always remember that a stopped clock is correct twice per day, so makes two correct predictions per day. A running clock, that is just a tad off, is wrong all of the time.
Which theory is superior and what do we mean by "superior" in terms of the theory in question best reflecting reality?
In the case of those clocks, most people would agree that the running clock is superior to the stopped clock.
You pose that question as if "superior" had an absolute meaning. Science is a purposeful activity, and we judge superiority based on how well our purposes are met.
If our purpose is terrestrial navigation, then geocentrism is superior to heliocentrism. If our purpose is understand the motion of the planets, then heliocentrism is superior.
The myth of the day is that the universe is completely mechanical, and that the vocabulary of "purpose" should be expunged from the language.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2011 2:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 7:03 AM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 31 (616374)
05-21-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
05-20-2011 4:29 PM


Competing Theories
Nwr writes:
That's far too abstract.
Then consider a real example. Consider the Big Bang theory. BB theory has resulted in specific predictions which have been successfully borne out. For this reason it is considered a "superior" theory to the steady state theory (or indeed any other competing theory - scientific or otherwise). And by "superior" here I mean a more accurate model of reality and description of the way nature behaves than any of the existing cosmological alternatives.
So - Would you agree that BB theory is a "superior" theory in the sense of being the cosmological theory that has best demonstrated it's ability to accurately describe reality and the behaviour of nature? Or not?
Nwr writes:
Always remember that a stopped clock is correct twice per day, so makes two correct predictions per day. A running clock, that is just a tad off, is wrong all of the time.
A lovely little homily. But are there any actual examples of competing theories where this is directly relevant?
Nwr writes:
If our purpose is terrestrial navigation, then geocentrism is superior to heliocentrism. If our purpose is understand the motion of the planets, then heliocentrism is superior.
Applying a geocentric frame of reference for the purposes of Earthbound navigation is not the same as geocentric theory. In past threads you have demonstrated this same deepseated misunderstanding. You essentially conflate arbitrary human constructions designed purely for practical convenience (like co-ordinate systems) with genuine scientific theories which attempt to describe, explain and predict aspects of nature. You then go onto describe science in terms of the arbitrary conventions and come to a series of flawed conclusions about the nature of science as a result.
Nwr writes:
The myth of the day is that the universe is completely mechanical, and that the vocabulary of "purpose" should be expunged from the language.
I am not sure what you mean by "completely mechanical". But I suspect that this "conventional wisdom" you keep speaking of is a rather simplistic and essentially erroneous version of what those who disagree with you actually think. Essentially a straw man. But just to be clear - Could you describe exactly what you think the "conventional wisdom" regarding the nature and role of science is?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 05-20-2011 4:29 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 12:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 31 (616387)
05-21-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
05-20-2011 7:19 AM


Re: Reformulating the Premise
Percy writes:
I viewed physics pretty much the way the article says, as providing hard answers about the universe, and telling me that in some realms of physics the answers were as flexible as essay questions would have put me off.
I think I started out studying physics with the view expressed in the article. But well before university entrance it was drummed into us that the sort of problems we were considering (including things like pendulums) were incredibly simplistic idealisations and that real life was much more complicated, chaotic and messy. That things like a real pendulum in the real world were subject to all sorts of effects that we couldn't hope to model with 100% accuracy. We were shown things like the chaotic behaviour of a double pendulum and the 3 body problem was discussed. I was also at that point reading popular science books about Feynman and his mathematical "fudges" (i.e renormalisation) to deal with the infinities that plagued theories of quantum electrodynamics.
So the idea that physics gave approximate 'good enough' answers to physical problems based on mathematical fudging was certainly far from alien quite early on.
Having said that the idea that physics at the most fundamental level was seeking to understand and explain things about the universe at the most basic and all encompassing level was also inherent. So although even a simple pendulum might in practical terms be so complex as to be impossible to model with 100% accuracy the universal principles that underly it's behaviour, things like conservation laws, were what physics at the deepest level was really about.
It is probably also true to say that my physics eductaion took a slightly snobbish approach to these things. The real behaviour of a particular real pendulum was the sort of thing "lowly" engineers might worry about. But understanding the deep principles that underly the behaviour of all such mechanical systems was what got real physicists out of bed in the morning. That was the general gist of my physics college education anyway.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 05-20-2011 7:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 19 of 31 (616398)
05-21-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
05-21-2011 7:03 AM


Re: Competing Theories
Straggler writes:
Then consider a real example. Consider the Big Bang theory. BB theory has resulted in specific predictions which have been successfully borne out. For this reason it is considered a "superior" theory to the steady state theory (or indeed any other competing theory - scientific or otherwise). And by "superior" here I mean a more accurate model of reality and description of the way nature behaves than any of the existing cosmological alternatives.
I do consider BB to be better than the steady state theory that preceded it.
As for the "more accurate model" bit - perhaps Pope Straggler has a direct pipeline to God where he can find out these things. From my perspective, there is no available standard of truth that would allow us to evaluate the accuracy of a scientific theory. We normally evaluate theories on their usefulness.
Straggler writes:
Applying a geocentric frame of reference for the purposes of Earthbound navigation is not the same as geocentric theory. In past threads you have demonstrated this same deepseated misunderstanding. You essentially conflate arbitrary human constructions designed purely for practical convenience (like co-ordinate systems) with genuine scientific theories which attempt to describe, explain and predict aspects of nature. You then go onto describe science in terms of the arbitrary conventions and come to a series of flawed conclusions about the nature of science as a result.
As best I can tell, there is no such thing as absolute motion. There is only relative motion. We can say that A moves relative to B. We cannot say that A moves.
We find it useful to adopt conventions, so that we can set a base, and describe motion relative to that base.
Science is all about conventions and standards, such as make it possible to have data and to use that data for making predictions. Science is not about "truth". Science typically uses "truth" in terms of compliance with the standards and conventions of science.
If you want a notion of "truth" that is completely independent of standards and conventions, you will need to go to religion. But maybe that won't work either, because religion is full of its own standards and conventions.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 7:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 1:14 PM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 31 (616401)
05-21-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nwr
05-21-2011 12:27 PM


Re: Competing Theories
nwr writes:
I do consider BB to be better than the steady state theory that preceded it.
In what sense do you think it is "better" if not a more accurate description of reality? In what way is it "better"...? This is desperately unclear.
nwr writes:
Science is all about conventions and standards, such as make it possible to have data and to use that data for making predictions.
So the theory of evolution by natural selection (for example) is a convention rather than a description of what the evidence indicates actually took place? Really?
nwr writes:
Science is all about conventions and standards, such as make it possible to have data and to use that data for making predictions.
Yet different theories derived from the same data will result in different predictions. So - Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?
nwr writes:
We find it useful to adopt conventions, so that we can set a base, and describe motion relative to that base.
And the choice of such a base would indeed be an arbitrary convention NOT a scientific theory. You can define whatever fixed point you damn well please and describe the motions of other bodies relative to that. But collecting accurate data about planetary motions using the Earth as an arbitrarily chosen fixed point to form the basis for you co-ordinate system is not the same as the theory that all the planets are orbiting the Earth. Obviously. You continue to conflate theories and arbitrary conventions such as co-ordinate systems and this lies at the heart of your flawed view.
nwr writes:
Science typically uses "truth" in terms of compliance with the standards and conventions of science.
What does that even mean...........?
Anyway - I have asked before and never received an answer from you so I will try again - Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? When answering bear in mind that it is quite possible for two competing theories derived from the same data to make radically different and even contradictory predictions.
And you still haven't made clear what this "conventional wisdom" you keep talking about actually consists of.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 12:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 4:06 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 21 of 31 (616406)
05-21-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
05-21-2011 1:14 PM


Re: Competing Theories
Straggler writes:
In what sense do you think it is "better" ...
That's a matter of personal judgment.
Straggler writes:
... if not a more accurate description of reality?
If you want an accurate description of reality, try journalism. They are in that business. Science is not merely a branch of journalism.
Straggler writes:
So the theory of evolution by natural selection (for example) is a convention rather than a description of what the evidence indicates actually took place? Really?
It is a system of conventions. Biologists often distinguish between "the theory of evolution" and "the fact of evolution". The descriptions fit with the "fact" part of that dichotomy.
Straggler writes:
Yet different theories derived from the same data will result in different predictions.
It is usually data that are derived from empirical practice that is based on theories. Most data are theory laden. Different theories have different data.
Straggler writes:
But collecting accurate data about planetary motions using the Earth as an arbitrarily chosen fixed point to form the basis for you co-ordinate system is not the same as the theory that all the planets are orbiting the Earth.
From "the planets and sun are orbiting earth" to "the planets and earth are orbiting the sun" is a simple mathematical transformation. There is no factual difference between them. The distinction between them is conventional, not factual.
I'm pretty sure that many physicists today would say that the earth, sun and planets are all in free fall in a gravitational field.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 1:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 6:14 PM nwr has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 22 of 31 (616408)
05-21-2011 4:32 PM


And now we see nwr doing his usual trick of "nwr's special equivocation", where he makes up new meanings for commonly used words and then completely refuses to explain what he means.
Today's words are:
completely mechanical
conventional wisdom
accurate
conventions
orbit
theory laden
If you are lucky he may say:
"Go read this book, it describes what I mean."
"...Oh! Did I forget to mention it is 900 pages long? Well, the definition is in there somewhere..."
Good luck with that, Straggler.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 31 (616413)
05-21-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
05-21-2011 4:06 PM


Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
nwr writes:
From "the planets and sun are orbiting earth" to "the planets and earth are orbiting the sun" is a simple mathematical transformation. There is no factual difference between them. The distinction between them is conventional, not factual.
Can you show me your source for this?
Because whilst it is absolutely true that a mathematical transformation can be used to switch between describing planetary motion relative either to the Earth or Sun the idea that the other planets in the Solar system are actually orbiting the Earth requires wholesale changes to the motion of those planets and is not a "convention". It is factually incorrect.
Straggler writes:
Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?
nwr writes:
No response as expected. So your pet theory of science remains wholly thwarted by this simple question I see.
Taking your above assertion as a case in point - I would be very suprised if you could accurately predict the position of Mars based on the theory that Mars is orbiting the Earth. Have you never heard of Ptolemy and his epicycles?
But if you can show me how accurate predictions of Mars position can be made on the basis of Mars orbiting the Earth I would be delighted to see it........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 4:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 9:18 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 24 of 31 (616424)
05-21-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
05-21-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
Straggler writes:
Because whilst it is absolutely true that a mathematical transformation can be used to switch between describing planetary motion relative either to the Earth or Sun the idea that the other planets in the Solar system are actually orbiting the Earth requires wholesale changes to the motion of those planets and is not a "convention". It is factually incorrect.
The meaning of the word "orbit" comes from usage conventions. And those usage conventions are partly from scientific usage.
Just for the heck of it, I looked up "orbit" at "http://onelook.com/?w=orbit&ls=a".
Here are the first few definitions:
  • Compact Oxford Dictionary: the regularly repeated elliptical course of a celestial object or spacecraft about a star or planet.
  • American Heritage Dictionary (redirected to a Yahoo site): The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body.
  • Vocabulary.com: To orbit is to follow a circular or elliptical path around a central body.
  • MacMillan: astronomy the path that is taken by an object moving around a larger object in space.
  • MacMillan (second link): to move around a large object in space such as a planet.
  • Merriam Webster: the bony socket of the eye
Mathematicians use the term "orbit" for any path in a dynamical system.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2011 6:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 05-22-2011 6:52 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 05-23-2011 9:10 AM nwr has replied
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 05-25-2011 1:07 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 25 of 31 (616440)
05-22-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by nwr
05-21-2011 9:18 PM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
Alice writes:
Humpty Dumpty writes:
The meaning of the word "orbit" comes from usage conventions. And those usage conventions are partly from scientific usage.
The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 9:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 31 (616556)
05-23-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by nwr
05-21-2011 9:18 PM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
You can play as many semantic games as you like. But the fact remains that you are conflating a geocentric frame of reference with a geocentric model of our planetary system. That you are incapable of recognising the difference between arbitrary constructs selected for convenience (like co-ordinate systems) and scientific theories which seek to accurately describe the behaviour of nature lies at the very heart of your ongoing misapprehensions.
Nwr writes:
If you want an accurate description of reality, try journalism.
Or astronomy.
A geocentric theory of planetary motion (i.e. one where the planets go round the Earth rather than the Sun) is unable to make accurate and reliable predictions about the position of Mars. Why? Because it is an inaccurate description of reality.
A heliocentric theory of planetary motion where both the Earth and Mars follow elliptic orbits around the Sun is able to make very accurate and reliable (albeit imperfect) predictions regarding the position of Mars. Why? Because it is a significantly more accurate description of reality. It is a superior theory.
Straggler writes:
Which theory is superior and what do we mean by "superior" in terms of the theory in question best reflecting reality?
Nwr writes:
If our purpose is terrestrial navigation, then geocentrism is superior to heliocentrism. If our purpose is understand the motion of the planets, then heliocentrism is superior.
Do you now understand that arbitrary conventions like co-ordinate systems are NOT scientific theories? Conversely do you now understand that the heliocentric and geocentric models of our planetary system are alternative descriptions of reality rather than just equally valid arbitrary conventions?
Or are you still confused about the innate difference between these two things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 9:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 05-23-2011 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 27 of 31 (616562)
05-23-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
05-23-2011 9:10 AM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
Straggler writes (in Message 23):
it is absolutely true that a mathematical transformation can be used to switch between describing planetary motion relative either to the Earth or Sun
Straggler writes:
A geocentric theory of planetary motion (i.e. one where the planets go round the Earth rather than the Sun) is unable to make accurate and reliable predictions about the position of Mars.
Those two statements are in direct contradiction.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 05-23-2011 9:10 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 05-23-2011 12:14 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 28 of 31 (616575)
05-23-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nwr
05-23-2011 10:22 AM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
nwr writes:
Those two statements are in direct contradiction.
Only to someone as confused as you are about the difference between arbitrary conventions and theories seeking to describe, explain and predict aspects of nature such as the physical motion of planetary bodies.
It is perfectly possible to mathematically describe the motion of Mars relative to any body you choose. You simply select the body and plot the motion of Mars on an appropriately constructed co-ordinate system. A co-ordinate system where the co-ordinates of the selected body (e.g. the Earth) are fixed (usually at the origin where all axes meet and have a value of zero). For practical reasons we may well wish to choose Earth as the fixed point on our co-ordinate system. This could meaningfully be described as a geocentric frame of reference. NOTE: This is not a scientific theory. It is an arbitrary convention applied for no reason other than convenience and usefulness.
However the above is most definitely NOT the same as a geocentric theory of planetary motion which stipulates that Mars goes round the Earth rather than the Sun. This is a description of nature that, when compared with reality, is simply wrong. And it remains wrong regardless of whatever co-ordinate system one chooses to apply.
The fact that you still cannot tell he difference between these two things is quite blatantly the underlying cause of your unique view of scientific theories as a series of definitions and conventions that have nothing to do with describing the physical behaviour of nature at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 05-23-2011 10:22 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 29 of 31 (616930)
05-25-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by nwr
05-21-2011 9:18 PM


Re: Mars Orbiting Earth.....?
I believe that Tony Rothman is pointing out that many are left uneducated to the fact that science doesn’t prove anything, And that there is a lot of mystery and things yet to be understood and explored.
I think that when science offers a notion as fact--that an uneducated public knows is impossible to know-- The general public chooses to discard the educated by calling them 'Educated Fools'.
The other fault of not teaching that science is not as accurate as we would like: is that many suppose that there is nothing left to discover. And worse: scientists accept an assumption that is wrong, and never get the opportunity to discover the truth concerning the assumption, which could become a great discovery.
I Think he is simply saying: Do not close your minds by believing there are things we cannot know, nor should you believe we really know, what we do not know; and become arrogant: but trust all things are possible. But remember: in science; the science is fairly accurate--while missing some pieces. If you understand science this way: your potential to discover will be broadened, and science will gain Greater knowledge, much faster than our current system of teaching. Which intentionally, or unintentionally, misleads-- ourselves and others-- about what we ‘do’ or ‘do not’ know.
I like him.
It reminds me of another expose`: George Ellis wrote in ‘A Brief History of Time’, Stephen Hawking, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, 1988:
For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. [...] You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 05-21-2011 9:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (623419)
07-10-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by granpa
05-19-2011 7:48 AM


Re: standard model
point particles are part of the standard model
Actually, they're not. This is a completely normal thing to hear about the standard model, but it's actually false.
Quantum fields are part of the standard model. In certain circumstances behaviour of the fields looks like the behaviour of quantum particles from quantum mechanics, then in even more specific circumstances these quantum particles can behave somewhat similarly to point particles from classical mechanics.
There are no point particles in the standard model only objects that in very specific circumstances have properties similar enough to them that you can pretend they're the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by granpa, posted 05-19-2011 7:48 AM granpa 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