Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Method


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 447 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Plenty of them, depending on what parts you want to disprove. A long period of cooling while greenhouses gas concentrations continue to rise would do so, assuming there weren't other known causes for the cooling, though even then the threat might be over if those other causes could be expected to continue. (Note: A couple of years below a hot outlier year doesn't count.)

The heat continuing to rise despite greenhouse gas concentrations dropping would break the theory, but not the threat.

Evidence of an unknown feedback loop scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than expected would end the threat without changing the basic theories.

Probably a ton of other things that I don't have the background to even think of.
All of this is very unlikely. That's because there is a huge body of evidence behind climate change. A lot of good, old, well tested theory and a ton of data showing that theory applies to the current situation.
Of course, on a smaller level, the process goes on in climate change theory all the time. Models are created, predictions made, compared against reality and hypotheses are shot down or revised. But that's in the details, not the big picture.

Let's go with that. A sustained period of cooling (say, thirty years?), while CO2 levels keep rising.

The problem is that the IPCC's mission is to find evidence for AGW. There is not one person there that would have the guts to say "well, maybe we were wrong". They would say "well, there are oscillations within the tectonic plates that have lowered the temperatures for now, but that won't save us for long, and we must make sure to transform our society into a sustainable, CO2 emission-free society". Just like they were saying about el Nino, then next year la Nina, then the NAO, then the gulf stream, then differently heated parts of the ocean, and so on and so forth.

More troubling, if your next scenario happened, rising heat despite falling CO2, the IPCC would most likely block inquiry into what...

I was of course speaking to what would constitute scientific reason to doubt climate change theory. The theory, as a theory, is certainly falsifiable.

I can't convince you that the IPCC would accept such evidence as disproof. That's not a scientific question and not really relevant to the thread.

There is a certain (cynical) truth to that attitude. To quote Max Planck:

Quote:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

However, that's after the evidence has appeared and a younger generation of scientists has moved on to working with the new theory. Scientific advances usually are made by the young, with the older generation providing a useful, but often too strong, check to their enthusiasm.

Note that it does not say you have to wait for the old ones to die before the work can be done and the evidence gathered, just that they tend not to accept the new theories.

This doesn't yet apply to climate change (or the IPCC) because the evidence doesn't exist. We haven't seen 30 years of cooling with CO2 rise or any of the other scenarios.


LazarX wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Well, A lot of Marx's stuff were anti-scientific and more alike to mysticism to begin with (no clue about modern marxism though).

You don't have a clue about classical Marxism either. Marx is generally considered the father of modern sociology, specifically as it applies to economics.

You need to learn that there's a major difference between Marxist thought and Cold War Soviet rhetoric.

and so?, I didn't say he did all wrong but he did make bold and very unscientific claims.

You assume I'm being influenced by the cold war rhetoric basically because that is what you do for everything, you make baseless assumptions about people, that is why you are have been proven wrong in this forum so many times.


When is failure to disprove significant?

When the success "proves" you right, or at least provides an awful lot of evidence for you.
'
The failure to disprove rather than prove (or even provide evidence for) is a hack to make science fit into a philosophy that is utterly overwhelmed by sciences ability to work when it philosophically shouldn't. It doesn't change a thing about how the scientific opperates at all, so what difference does it make?

Why on earth should we care about the opinion of an implacable critic?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Popper's requirement of falsification was as I understand it pretty much a response to the sloppy, all-encompassing theories of Freud et al, where no possible criticism or experiment could be considered to throw the theory into invalidity. The importance of falsification, while modern science is problematic in some areas (such as probabilities of events happening), is still huge. I suppose I mean that if no possible test could disprove your theory, it has become too important to you for you to see it soberly. No matter how good or important the theory is for you, humanity, and the world.

What would make the IPCC declare the threat of climate change over? Really consider it. Is there a single possible scenario?

Sure. A sustained drop in atmospheric CO2 levels would probably do it. But bear in mind that the baseline data they're looking at now is roughly 200 years long; the current theory isn't going to be overturned on the basis of a single observation or even a single anomalous year.

If it were ONLY that simple, which it isn't. This is one area where there can be GREAT controversy in the science.

It entirely depends on what model you are using. Accurate measurements only range from a matter of 60 to 80 years with modern (relatively speaking) instruments. Many hold that anything beyond this is mere speculation. For models older than that, if they have to use it...they won't use the 200 year baseline for reasons listed below.

There is some extracted and extemporaneous data which goes around 150-200 years. I think most don't actually consider this an accurate data for these models and would go with the one either above, or one of the ones that I am going to list below. They primarily skewer this one scientifically because it's unreliable. It's not based on HARD science or HARD observation, but much of it is based on assumption and guesses.

Despite that, there ARE records that are for more accurate than the 150-200 year data. It depends on which data set you are using, but these use core samples, tree data, and other items where there is SOLID evidence (rather mere guesses and assumptions).

These transverse the range of 1000 years to 10,000 to 100,000 or more years out. (the ones based on core samples get pretty far ranging).

There is great debate over which data sets should be used, how they should be used, and what to do about the points where they do not agree or conflict.

That does NOT mean the science is flawed by any means (as most would be surprised at how much they correlate rather than conflict...and what the discussions would be...such as...did the climate of Northern England have a slightly rainier season then normal, or a moderately more rainy season than normal for several decades in the latter 16th century types of debates rather then whether it was rainy or not)...but that there are details in the minutia which are debated in regards to various data.

The most useful of course are typically when they combine them into a whole...but at that point you aren't just looking at a data set that goes back to 150 to 200 years. Many in the public would find stating a record goes back thousands of years far more controversial than one that goes back 150-200 years or even one that only goes back 50 years.

I think you may be referring to one that many think only goes back to near 200 years, but itself is a conglomerate (like what I described in the preceding paragraph) which uses other data to expand the information from modern instrumentation. In some reports they only utilize stuff from a century or two ago, but that actual data and baselines extend FAR longer than a mere century or two...even if not referenced directly in what people see on the reports in the media (if it's the one I'm thinking you are referring to...OR you could be referring to the one which actually only DOES go out 150-200 years, but as I said that data set is normally not utilized due to some rather obvious flaws with it).

But saying there's a baseline that goes back almost 200 years I suppose might be a nice answer to those who don't realize there are different data sets with various degrees of agreement...but I wouldn't say the statement is exactly the most accurate from what I understand (which of course is excessively limited from exposure from relatives works and such).


More on topic, I find it odd that people are discussing the definition of science. Most definitions seem to agree from Websters, and others which I'll list below...

Quote:


knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Quote:


a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology.

Oxford

Quote:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

Cambridge

Quote:
the ​systematic ​study of the ​structure and ​behavior of the ​natural and ​physical ​world, or ​knowledge ​obtained about the ​world by ​watching it ​carefully and experimenting:

Seems basically that it's the study of the world by observation and experimentation.

Why such a discussion over it's definition when it's already defined by multiple dictionaries already...or is this us trying to come up with other definitions that don't stick with the dictionary?

On the philosophy of science...that's far more complex, and I haven't come up with anything useful to say on the actual philosophy (popper, proper, and all) yet.

Liberty's Edge

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Economics isn't a science and the far left is notorious for rejecting science in favor of critical theory or ideological convenience or purity. On the other hand pretty much all of the right does the same.

Since he specifically mentioned Popper being disliked for his dismissal of Marx, and since I've specifically seen marxist historians and economists say we need to approach economics in a more scientific fashion, it didn't add up for me.

Do you have any specific example of modern marxist economics rejecting the scientific method? Seeing as how part of their criticism of marginalism is that it's infalsifiable, it seems like a claim that would need to be at least somewhat backed up.

I agree that modern economics is usually not very scientific, relying on pseudoscience and baseless assumptions, much like the current shape of evolutionary psychology, but there is nothing inherently anti-scientific in studying economies.

Thank you for proving my point.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Random thought: If our moon had spun around alittle more do you think people would have figured out the whole spinning planet thing faster?

I had a similar random thought last week after hearing about the discovery of a gas giant orbiting within the habitable zone of a binary star system.

Terrestrial-like life certainly isn't possible on that planet, but it might be possible on one of its moons. Such a moon would quite probably be tidally locked with its planet. Anyone living there would see two suns orbiting one another, and a giant planet fixed in place in the sky but with a revolving aspect.

Would that propel or impede the understanding of celestial mechanics? On the one hand there is more evidence which is easily seen with the naked eye, but on the other hand there is also much greater potential for superstitious beliefs.

In any case, it would be a cool place to see.


Weird drug + neil de grass tyson induced question

Does something spinning effectively make it heavier the same way other motion does?


http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Weird drug + neil de grass tyson induced question

Does something spinning effectively make it heavier the same way other motion does?

Heavier.. eh.

More massive, yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Random thought: If our moon had spun around alittle more do you think people would have figured out the whole spinning planet thing faster?

If the Sun itself wasn't a clue, what could be? Earth was known to be a round planet back at the time of the Ancient Greeks. In fact Erathosethenes caluclated the circumference of the Earth to fairly close of it's actual value. The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, assumes a round Earth, not a flat one. They simply got it a bit wrong in having the sun and the rest of the solar system revolving around Earth. Keep in mind though that they were millennia before we would have Newtonian theory and Kepler's models.

The only reason that sailors of Europe thought the Earth might be flat was because of the thousand years of setback caused by the fall of the Roman Empire and the interregum of the Dark Ages on European thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

---

Most a stuff in this thread is very enjoyable to read. I just wanted to add something in the mix: I recently watched a very interesting presentation in the European Science Education Research Conference about a big percentage of people who accept science and believe in scientism. First one: Great! Second one: Eh... Not so great.

So, what is scientism and why is it a problem: Scientism is the belief that because science says something, it has to be true. It's very similar to the notion "If the priest says it, it has to be true". In this particular presentation, it was paired with belief in creationism (which only about 4% of the students accepted), because the presenter didn't really like the idea of scientism.
I agree with her. Scientism is a bad thing. It has two main problems:
1. It dilutes the idea of "There is nothing like absolute truth in science"
2. It makes it easy for unscientific people to attack science, if something was proven wrong
So where does scientism come from? People want absolute truths. And if they don't use religion anymore (because it has bad reputation), they turn to the "next big thing"... Science.

Whats your opinion on that?

---

Oh, and one other thing to add: Religious beliefs are not contraindicatory to being a scientist. Only if you use your beliefs in science it gets wonky. ;) I am an active member in the greek orthodox church and I have a (still fresh) PhD in physics education, so for me it certainly works.


Jeremais wrote:
So, what is scientism and why is it a problem: Scientism is the belief that because science says something, it has to be true. It's very similar to the notion "If the priest says it, it has to be true"

Absolutely 100% NOT the same thing.

When a scientist says that something science can deal with is true they believe that for very good reasons: methodological data collection on the issue, experimental evidence for the position, and double checking it with other colleagues who will gleefully tear the idea to shreds if they can. Science has a proven track record of churning out correct ideas about the universe that has enabled human advancement from fire to going to the moon, leaving the solar system, and having this conversation. If you ask a scientist how they know something they will giddily go into great, excruciating detail about why and invite you to try the observations yourself. When science says something it has more than earned your attention.

When a priest says something is true its because their tradition/holy text of less than dubious origin says so. It is not only unevidenced, it is neigh inured to rational criticism or disproof and often defaults to unknowable consequences in the never verified afterlife. This makes it incredibly difficult for bad ideas to filter out of the population. Its means you're less likely to be right and worse, less likely to listen to someone showing you that you're wrong.


So, you clearly didn't get the difference between science and scientism? Scientism isn't about proof and data checking, it's about "I read in the NY times that scientists say that genetics do X, so it has to be true".
I know that I maybe abbreviated that a little bit in my above post, but know you should get the idea.

And yes, scientism is like religion. Because for scientism-believers, the scientist is as unfallible as for religious people some priests. And thats bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#Relevance_to_science.2Freligion_deb ates

http://qz.com/476722/be-careful-your-love-of-science-looks-a-lot-like-relig ion/


Jeremias wrote:
So, you clearly didn't get the difference between science and scientism? Scientism isn't about proof and data checking, it's about "I read in the NY times that scientists say that genetics do X, so it has to be true".

That would be new york timesism. It would also be a complete backtracking of what you said. It would also be inconsistent with your own cited sources.

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints

So no, the problem isn't that i don't "get" what you're saying, the problem is a complete, total, and utter bait and switch....which I'm leaning towards concluding is deliberate.

Quote:
And yes, scientism is like religion. Because for scientism-believers, the scientist is as unfallible as for religious people some priests. And thats bad.

Religious folks don't like having their ideas rejected while science's ideas get embraced and try to set up an equivalency between the two by this dishonest argument.

Science works very very well. Religion is less right than a broken clock. You cannot merely lump them both together as "less than perfect" and then pretend that they're the same thing and treat people that believe one as the same as those that believe the other.

Someone using the pejorative term scientism is just trying to insult something that conflicts with their beliefs

And this nonsense right here is why I VERY much hate poppers outlook rather than merely disagree with it.


Quote:
Religious folks don't like having their ideas rejected while science's ideas get embraced and try to set up an equivalency between the two by this dishonest argument.

Aha. You are really trying to sell that ideas of scientists get embraced? Really? I'm sorry, I work in a field called physics education and I had to laugh really hard. Just read this: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854310.pdf

It is really friggin' hard to get people to accept scientific theories!

And the main problem is: Once you get something in the head of people, it is stuck there and is very resistant to change: "Gravity is like this or that, so it should work the same everywhere!" or "Light moves in a straight line, so what is this nonsense about gravitational lenses!"

You believe that ordinary people, not trained in the scientific method, think like scientists. This is very naive. People search for absolute truths. They want stable worlds where things get explained and not be questioned further.
You seem to believe that I didn't read the sources correctly, let me quote from the second one:

Quote:
In 2013, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology​ found that when subjects were stressed, they were more likely to agree to statements typifying scientism such as, “the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge.” When people felt anxious, they esteemed science more highly than calmer subjects did, just as previous experiments have shown to be the case with religious ideals.
Quote:
In these cases, beliefs about science may be defended emotionally, even if they are false, as long as they provide a reassuring sense of order. That is to say, beliefs about science may be defended thoughtlessly—even unscientifically.

So it seems that ordinary people use science as a remedy in the same way people use religion. And you don't find that objectionable?

---

Quote:
So no, the problem isn't that i don't "get" what you're saying, the problem is a complete, total, and utter bait and switch....which I'm leaning towards concluding is deliberate.

Hm... So you are saying I use a dishonest discussion strategy? I would disagree (naturally). At least not intentionally, maybe you and I are not communicating clearly...

Let me define "Scientism" as I understand it (and as it was used in the aforementioned conference):
Scientism is "inappropriately privileging science and scientific method above all else".
That definition is what I had in mind. I am aware that in the Wikipedia Link, a lot more definitions were inherent, but I thought that by using the QZ-Link, it would get clearer.
Do you still think I try to intentionally confuse things? I'm happy to clarify myself more if that is the case.


Jeremias wrote:
Quote:
Religious folks don't like having their ideas rejected while science's ideas get embraced and try to set up an equivalency between the two by this dishonest argument.

Aha. You are really trying to sell that ideas of scientists get embraced? Really? I'm sorry, I work in a field called physics education and I had to laugh really hard. Just read this: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854310.pdf

It is really friggin' hard to get people to accept scientific theories!

You seem to have mixed up getting people to UNDERSTAND a scientific concept with BELIEVE a scientific concept. (also in a very nitpicky and gotcha manner

Compare how well any other idea spreads. Do you believe in hinduism Buddism? Egyptian gods?

All over the world people DO believe in atoms, electrons, photons, f=ma math, engineering... regardless of their religion. No, its not perfect, but in a running theme here just because its not perfect doesn't mean that its not a lot better.

Quote:
You believe that ordinary people, not trained in the scientific method, think like scientists. This is very naive. People search for absolute truths. They want stable worlds where things get explained and not be questioned further.

You can't make up what I believe, get it wrong, and then insult me for it. Try again without the mind reading device.

Quote:
In 2013, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology​

I thought this was a science discussion. *drumroll*

...social psych is worse than either psych or sociology

Quote:
found that when subjects were stressed, they were more likely to agree to statements typifying scientism such as, “the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge.”

Gasp. People agree with you more when under stress. Oldest salesmans trick in the book. (act now! quantities are limited!)

Quote:
So it seems that ordinary people use science as a remedy in the same way people use religion. And you don't find that objectionable?

a 20th level monk would raise an eyebrow questionably at the dc on that leap of logic.

Quote:

Let me define "Scientism" as I understand it (and as it was used in the aforementioned conference):

Scientism is "inappropriately privileging science and scientific method above all else".

If you're asking if inappropriate privilege is inappropriate you're asking a tautology.

But you seem to imply that putting it above other ideas is automatically inappropriate... and its not. Science has more than earned the top dog spot on an hierarchy of how we learn stuff. Its hard to overstate how much better it is than any other method.

Quote:
Do you still think I try to intentionally confuse things?

Eyup


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that there's a useful and necessary hierarchy of how we learn stuff.

Eg., when growing up as toddlers we learn by experimenting with our bodies, and by social immersion.

Much later, in school, we learn by being exposed to the scientific method. More generally, we then learn to learn in cognitive ways.

When we finally hear about the science's processes, we, hopefully, have already learned a good deal about being a human being and an affable member of society.

Science is not the way of learning to trump all other ways of learning.

I appreciate all my various ways of learning.


Quote:


You seem to have mixed up getting people to UNDERSTAND a scientific concept with BELIEVE a scientific concept. (also in a very nitpicky and gotcha manner

Compare how well any other idea spreads. Do you believe in hinduism Buddism? Egyptian gods?

All over the world people DO believe in atoms, electrons, photons, f=ma math, engineering... regardless of their religion. No, its not perfect, but in a running theme here just because its not perfect doesn't mean that its not a lot better.

First: Believing without understanding is not a good basis for being a scientist. And if you are not a scientist in a special field, it's really uncommon to always be skeptical of this particular field. Also something already studied.

Second: A lot of people believe in either the christian god or the muslimic god. Are they now correct because it is a running theme? I would strongly advise against using "a lot of people believe in" as proof of something.

Quote:
Quote:
In 2013, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology​
I thought this was a science discussion. *drumroll*
Quote:
But you seem to imply that putting it above other ideas is automatically inappropriate... and its not. Science has more than earned the top dog spot on an hierarchy of how we learn stuff. Its hard to overstate how much better it is than any other method.

Ehm... Yeah... What should I say to that.

You clearly have no idea about "learning" (learning is, in general, a very complex process and doesn't involve so much the scientific process, instead it has a lot to do with cultural roots and emotional states) and you are obviously dismissive of anything not from the field of science (Fun Fact: In german "Wissenschaft" includes not only natural science but also art, history, etc.), which I find a little bit odd.

But I understand now more clearly your points. You seem to be exactly the person I'm worried about: Someone who is so convinced of the superiority of his own thinking that he cannot see or accept anything else, which is in itself a very un-scientific way of thinking.

Just to be clear: To get a PhD in physics education, you have to use the scientific method and adhere to it. I wouldn't have passed the comittee without proof, that I think like a scientist. So, I'm not against the method. But I am against this superiority complex. Because the scientific method is such a great method, it doesn't need this kind of "support". Or: Science doesn't need blind followers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints

So no, the problem isn't that i don't "get" what you're saying, the problem is a complete, total, and utter bait and switch....which I'm leaning towards concluding is deliberate.

It probably is. If the recent attacks on Planned Parenthood teaches one nothing it should this. Believers will say anything, show anythign, even false videos, if the lie serves what they consider a "greater truth". If they do it often enough, they will even believe their ow lies if the "greater truth" is served.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You would be amazed at the number of scientists who fake studies to strengthen their own theories and stubbornly refuse to accept evidence that shows they are wrong.

Being a scientist does not protect one from being a fallible human being.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

You would be amazed at the number of scientists who fake studies to strengthen their own theories and stubbornly refuse to accept evidence that shows they are wrong.

Being a scientist does not protect one from being a fallible human being.

No it doesn't. Thus the quote above about waiting for old scientists to die off.

But really, that's the point about science. It doesn't rely on scientists being infallible. The scientific method builds in ways to cover for that. It relies on making your methods and results public so others can check them. It's not perfect. It doesn't always work. But it's by far the best method we've come up with for getting around that pesky human fallibility thing.


I'm popping back in to say that there is definitely such thing as bad science, and there are a disturbing number of people who simply do just go 'A scientist said it so it must be true'. The best example I can think of off-hand is the 'Vaccinations cause Autism' thing.

Some doctor did a study on about 10 five-year-old patients. Gave them their vaccinations and called them back after about a year. He noted that 7 of them had been diagnosed with autism since he'd last seen them. Paper published! Vaccinations give you autism!

Never mind that 10 people isn't even close to a suitable sample size for a study, most autism cases are diagnosed around that age, and the results have never been replicated. The doctor had most of his qualifications revoked after that.

And yet, people still believe it! It's madness! It really is just blind belief. In principle science is something you can check on, but in practice, members of the general public don't, and that, for the most part, means that they are essentially just believing blindly.

~~~~~~

As for dodgy results and faking studies, it is indeed common. The cultural thing of being too afraid to speak out holds in science as well. Getting results that don't match theories are often 'adjusted for error' so that they match the expected results more closely. It's all too easy to assume you've made a mistake instead of getting genuinely different results. With time the alterations can come out (See the Hubble Constant example I used earlier), but it does tend to be slow and met with resistance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many, if not most, doctors say that there's no causal relationship between vaccination and autism.

So the people believing there's a relation do not so because that lone doctor established a relation with this one study.

It's rather that they were previously wary about vaccinations, and that they use that study as corroborating their previous doubts about vaccination.

They choose data that validates their point of view.

Like we all tend to do, scientists or not.


Quote:
First: Believing without understanding is not a good basis for being a scientist. And if you are not a scientist in a special field, it's really uncommon to always be skeptical of this particular field. Also something already studied.

Ok, I think you're either copy pasting an argument that you don't understand from somewhere , or you googled something and linked the first article without reading it. What you SAID was that people didn't believe science. What you LINKED was an article saying that students didn't understand science, and it was incredibly nit picky about what qualified as understood.

Quote:
You clearly have no idea about "learning" (learning is, in general, a very complex process and doesn't involve so much the scientific process, instead it has a lot to do with cultural roots and emotional states)

What the....are you writing responses off of magnetic poetry? Pulling them out of a hat? Wheel of morality turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn? This is the most random inane off topic babble I've ever seen and I've been to Florida.

Quote:
But I understand now more clearly your points. You seem to be exactly the person I'm worried about: Someone who is so convinced of the superiority of his own thinking that he cannot see or accept anything else, which is in itself a very un-scientific way of thinking.

Its a very scientific way of thinking. Science gets results. Other ways of thinking don't. Science has evidence that it gets evidence. Others have faith that the faith is justified.

Its not blind to see that science is better than the rest because it IS better. That's why we spend billions of dollars on building a supercollider rather than $1,899 on a philosophers comfy chair and elbow patches: because it WORKS. Its why 10,000 years of praying to the gods for an end to disease did nothing but medicine got rid of polio.

Quote:
Just to be clear: To get a PhD in physics education, you have to use the scientific method and adhere to it. I wouldn't have passed the comittee without proof, that I think like a scientist. So, I'm not against the method. But I am against this superiority complex. Because the scientific method is such a great method, it doesn't need this kind of "support". Or: Science doesn't need blind followers.

Show me you know what you're talking about. Don't tell me you know what you're talking about.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Dave, Minnesotan Heathen wrote:
Oh hay dare now, nothin' wrong with being a heathen, you betcha!

yo that's my religion bro

anywy ironically I ended up not having the attention span for my own thread even after i stopped being busy, sorry about that folks. Lol adhd

I wouldn't use the term "ironically" to describe fumbling a Wis check with starting a thread which you know it'll go south on page 1 and then proceeding to SUGARFLUFFLYBUNNIESAMIAFINEBUTTERFLYTODAY*GIGGLES* out of it. Somebody will have to clean after you, in the end.

And no, having a cute nickname and a complicated backstory doesn't cut for an excuse.


Meh. Went better than expected.

Looowered expectations...

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Dave, Minnesotan Heathen wrote:
Oh hay dare now, nothin' wrong with being a heathen, you betcha!

yo that's my religion bro

anywy ironically I ended up not having the attention span for my own thread even after i stopped being busy, sorry about that folks. Lol adhd

I wouldn't use the term "ironically" to describe fumbling a Wis check with starting a thread which you know it'll go south on page 1 and then proceeding to SUGARFLUFFLYBUNNIESAMIAFINEBUTTERFLYTODAY*GIGGLES* out of it. Somebody will have to clean after you, in the end.

And no, having a cute nickname and a complicated backstory doesn't cut for an excuse.

Only one faith gets to use that excuse, and that's all of them!

Hail Eris!


Quote:


Show me you know what you're talking about. Don't tell me you know what you're talking about.

As I am not fond of doing this in public, you'll get a PM.

I think I have said anything I can say. I have learned something from the discussion, so it was a good experience. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

You would be amazed at the number of scientists who fake studies to strengthen their own theories and stubbornly refuse to accept evidence that shows they are wrong.

Being a scientist does not protect one from being a fallible human being.

That's why science doesn't depend on any one person. It depends on that process called peer review to spot quackeries like cold fusion or other such nonsense.


Rrright. Because peer review is spotless.
Just remember Dan Shechtman, the Nobel-Prize winning "quasi-scientist" (quote from Linus Pauling).

But I agree it is one of the best methods we have at the moment.


Jeremias wrote:

Rrright. Because peer review is spotless.

Just remember Dan Shechtman, the Nobel-Prize winning "quasi-scientist" (quote from Linus Pauling).

But I agree it is one of the best methods we have at the moment.

Best. By far.

There really isn't, and hasn't ever been, anything to compete.

At least for the kinds of things it does. It doesn't really handle the "Why" or the "Should we" kinds of questions.


Jeremias wrote:

Rrright. Because peer review is spotless.

Just remember Dan Shechtman, the Nobel-Prize winning "quasi-scientist" (quote from Linus Pauling).

But I agree it is one of the best methods we have at the moment.

One of ? Whats even remotely close?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeremias wrote:

Rrright. Because peer review is spotless.

Just remember Dan Shechtman, the Nobel-Prize winning "quasi-scientist" (quote from Linus Pauling).

But I agree it is one of the best methods we have at the moment.

Um... Shechtman and quasi-crystals sort of proves the effectiveness of the peer review system since his results were replicated repeatedly and the definition of a solid was changed because of it and Pauling basically got sidelined and ignored because he kept coming up with more and more convoluted explanations why Shechtman and everyone else was wrong.


Hm... It was not just Pauling, but even his own boss and he had to fight a real uphill-battle even after his ideas got track.

But you are certainly not wrong, in the long run he won over the community. What I was saying is the following: Even "peer review" doesn't protect a good new idea if the community doesn't accept it because of some unwritten rule. In the long run, you may win, but in the short run it will seem like running against a wall.


Jeremias wrote:

Hm... It was not just Pauling, but even his own boss and he had to fight a real uphill-battle even after his ideas got track.

But you are certainly not wrong, in the long run he won over the community. What I was saying is the following: Even "peer review" doesn't protect a good new idea if the community doesn't accept it because of some unwritten rule. In the long run, you may win, but in the short run it will seem like running against a wall.

This is a feature, not a bug. Its supposed to be monumentally hard to get an idea accepted, thats what helps to give the ideas value when we do settle on them. Thats halfthe reason WHY they're better than the ideas that other systems put out.

Liberty's Edge

Science does not "put out" ideas.

People put out ideas.

The scientific method is what you use to test these ideas.

Science does not interact with faith or belief per se. It deals only in measurable results.

Note that not measurable does not mean non-existent or not real.


Jeremias wrote:
You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

I doubt that. We can tell how far away the sun is. For it to go around the earth once a day would cause massive amounts of doppler effects that we don't see.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeremias wrote:
You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

I doubt that. We can tell how far away the sun is. For it to go around the earth once a day would cause massive amounts of doppler effects that we don't see.

Several people in general relativity consider the two point of view basically as equivalent.

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld-


Nicos wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeremias wrote:
You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

I doubt that. We can tell how far away the sun is. For it to go around the earth once a day would cause massive amounts of doppler effects that we don't see.

Several people in general relativity consider the two point of view basically as equivalent.

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld-

You can. The math works out. It's just uglier.

However, the reasons for the configuration and the motion point strongly in one direction. Our understanding of gravity makes sense of the earth rotating around the sun. It doesn't make sense at all the other way around.


thejeff wrote:
Nicos wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeremias wrote:
You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

I doubt that. We can tell how far away the sun is. For it to go around the earth once a day would cause massive amounts of doppler effects that we don't see.

Several people in general relativity consider the two point of view basically as equivalent.

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld-

You can. The math works out. It's just uglier.

However, the reasons for the configuration and the motion point strongly in one direction. Our understanding of gravity makes sense of the earth rotating around the sun. It doesn't make sense at all the other way around.

In fact Einstein were claiming the opposite of what you say. Because gravity and relativity are very related.

I don't really have a solid opinion on the issue because there are unexpected subtleties about the equivalence between gravity and geometry, but the issue seems to be dismissed to quickly mostly because (and I'm not saying is the case here) people have no clue about relativity.

I see a lot of stuffs like "from the point of view of the empty space the earth orbits around the sun" which is nonsense.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeremias wrote:
You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)

I doubt that. We can tell how far away the sun is. For it to go around the earth once a day would cause massive amounts of doppler effects that we don't see.

Also, epicycles, and that it took Einstein and relativity to explain all of the weirdness in Mercury's orbit.


Geocentric is surely just placing your coordinate system with the earth at the zero point. I think you can still let it revolve.


An orbital system is one case where putting your frame of reference at rest relative to the center of mass really does make the math simpler. Assuming the earth goes around the sun is a much simpler problem, both in terms of describing the motion and in terms of describing the gravitational and other forces that act upon the bodies in question.

In more complex problems it's much less easy to identify what frame makes the problem simplest.


thejeff wrote:

An orbital system is one case where putting your frame of reference at rest relative to the center of mass really does make the math simpler. Assuming the earth goes around the sun is a much simpler problem, both in terms of describing the motion and in terms of describing the gravitational and other forces that act upon the bodies in question.

In more complex problems it's much less easy to identify what frame makes the problem simplest.

Or, you know, say that something really is a certain way, which is the entire point of science.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

An orbital system is one case where putting your frame of reference at rest relative to the center of mass really does make the math simpler. Assuming the earth goes around the sun is a much simpler problem, both in terms of describing the motion and in terms of describing the gravitational and other forces that act upon the bodies in question.

In more complex problems it's much less easy to identify what frame makes the problem simplest.

Or, you know, say that something really is a certain way, which is the entire point of science.

You are aware that GR make the issue not so simple, right?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

An orbital system is one case where putting your frame of reference at rest relative to the center of mass really does make the math simpler. Assuming the earth goes around the sun is a much simpler problem, both in terms of describing the motion and in terms of describing the gravitational and other forces that act upon the bodies in question.

In more complex problems it's much less easy to identify what frame makes the problem simplest.

Or, you know, say that something really is a certain way, which is the entire point of science.

Which works for a solar system, because the math is easier from one perspective, but doesn't for many other more complex systems, since you can't use the same approach to tell that it "really is a certain way".

And from a philosophical point of view, which I know you disdain, that's not the entire point of science. The entire point of science is to build better theoretical models that make more accurate predictions. Because that's useful. And verifiable. What "really is", isn't a useful scientific question.

Admittedly, most of time even scientists think of it that way, but in a rigorous sense, it's not true.


thejeff wrote:
]Which works for a solar system, because the math is easier from one perspective

No dammit.

We are not playing this game of epistemic nihlistic philosophy where everything indicates that it works this way but we apply the false modesty of saying that we don't know.

Its a planet. It actually exists somewhere. Thats a sun, it actually exists somewhere. There is an underlying real, objective reality that we can and do understand here.

Quote:
but doesn't for many other more complex systems, since you can't use the same approach to tell that it "really is a certain way".

Evolution is far more complex and has hit a similar level of certainty.

Quote:
And from a philosophical point of view, which I know you disdain, that's not the entire point of science. The entire point of science is to build better theoretical models that make more accurate predictions. Because that's useful. And verifiable. What "really is", isn't a useful scientific question.

Horsepuckey. If the point was to get a consistent model they'd be designing RPGs. The point is to get an ACCURATE model of the universe, to the point that there's no distinction between the two. You don't say "Oh goody, now i have a model of disease transmission" you say "Hey look at these little buggers in my microscope making people sick.. lets kill them!"

Quote:
Admittedly, most of time even scientists think of it that way, but in a rigorous sense, it's not true.

Who cares about the opinion of an implacable critic?


Nicos wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

An orbital system is one case where putting your frame of reference at rest relative to the center of mass really does make the math simpler. Assuming the earth goes around the sun is a much simpler problem, both in terms of describing the motion and in terms of describing the gravitational and other forces that act upon the bodies in question.

In more complex problems it's much less easy to identify what frame makes the problem simplest.

Or, you know, say that something really is a certain way, which is the entire point of science.
You are aware that GR make the issue not so simple, right?

For a photon yes. For larger things I think sometimes ya'll been drinking too much of the philosophers koolaid.

51 to 100 of 447 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Method All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.