swansont

How were those techniques developed, if not by methods that fall under experimentation? How does learning e.g. chemistry not fall under reporting? You're the recipient of that reporting.

Money spent goes into the economy Hypothetically When debt is only a problem when the other side is in power, then you know that the debt isn't really the problem.

I've asked the question about how philosophy is intended to help me align my laser, which seems on par with your butterfly measurement question. It seems to be couched more toward "how does philosophy extend its overlap" rather than "how does science extend its overlap" and I have no issue with that, but it does seem that people more adept at philosophy must answer it. It's not contra my view. Can you point to where I introduced any claims about cannonball trajectories? I'm trying to figure out if this is a comprehension issue or if you are being deliberately obtuse.(edit: or possibly a matter of simply not having an understanding of QM or some other areas of physics, so not being able to comment, but then, if you lack familiarity, how can you make a declaration with such certainty?) Some physics does not describe reality, does not mean all of physics does not describe reality. (and you might note that I never made any distinction between observable and non-observable. That goalpost was moved by you)

Good. Because there's lots of physics that are unobservable, as I have previously described. We see the effects of this. But, you disagreed with this. (well, sort of, since you never actually addressed my examples, and instead cherry-picked others) Here's an example of what I just talked about. The cannonball is what you brought up, not me. It's a straw man argument, and you should really stop doing this.

I didn't claim that you did. "reality" is only part of the sentence. Read the whole thing. You balked at my position, which I describe.

The order might be different in some cases, but you have hypothesis/theory, experiment/observation, and reporting, so I'm not sure what's missing.

How is this different from my position that science describes behavior (i.e. what we can observe) rather than reality. (something you balked at)

EldadEshel banned as a sock puppet of Eldad Eshel and Eldad Eshel 2

At some point it's a matter of QM and the uncertainty principle, because we would not be able to simultaneously measure the change in position and change in speed. But I agree gravity doesn't "kick in" at some threshold, according to what we know about gravity.

That doesn't really mean that someone is on to something. Crackpots hit a sore point with scientists, precisely for the opposite reason.

What kind if debt, whose debt, and why is this in ethics? If I take on debt to start up a business, how is this a loss of opportunity?

! Moderator Note Post not about this news article was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125738-climate-change-split-from-climate-change-tipping-points/

This is perfectly consistent with what you have been told, and does not say what you have claimed. "limited gravity" does not mean "no gravity"

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

The topic of the thread is the difference between science and philosophy, so the whole premise here is that there are distinctions between the two, i.e. we are looking at the bits that do not overlap. Pointing to science and calling it philosophy is not in keeping with that premise. Analogies are useful when you have a topic that cannot be easily conveyed and you want to present the information in a simpler format. But that's not the case here. I was asking for an example even before you stated "I believe a little delving into the philosophy of science would help scientists understand their own enterprise better" and an example would suffice. Instead you offer an analogy. One that I don't think is particularly apt, since I can envision scenarios where knowing history might help, and can't envision one where philosophy might help. Which is what prompted my request for an example. If all you have to offer is an analogy, it suggests you don't have an example, which then begs the question about the source of your belief. "Does not describe" and "does not try to describe" are very different things and AFAICT only one has been offered in discussion. But even if we take the obvious one: the cannonball trajectory is not reality, let me ask this: how do we know that the cannonball is not, in reality, moving in a twelve-dimensional space but it's just that we can only perceive three spatial dimensions, and the projection of those twelve dimensions onto our three-dimensional perception is a sphere moving along that trajectory? How can we be certain about this? And is there anything about Newtons laws of motions, used to derive the trajectory of the ball, that can be inferred as an attempt to confirm that the ball is or is not in a twelve-dimensional space?

How is that philosophy and not actual science? atomic interactions implies chemistry.

But is also asking about specific claims ("I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find them questionable.") without sourcing them, and then using regional data as rebuttal. The sourcing is important, because there is a difference between cyclone number and cyclone intensity (and related issues like rainfall); the former is given in the post but the latter is what the IPCC claim seems to be https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

You might note that the issue is global climate change, and a general rule, looking at local effects will not rebut the claim of global impact, unless the claim is that every place would see that impact. e.g. a claim that average temperature is going up is not a claim that the temperature is going up at every point on the globe, so finding a place that sees the temperature staying constant or even decreasing does not rebut the claim.

You did not say history, you said philosophy. Those are different disciplines. So please, don't move the goalposts. You're basically telling the ballplayer they don't understand baseball well enough, And you, as someone without any baseball creds. They might retort "Don't tell me about baseball" or even "WTH does philosophy have to do with baseball?" (something, as with the laser alignment issue, I would be interested in finding out) You should learn about renormalization. Well that would go back to Nobel and the invention of dynamite. What philosophy, specifically?

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf a recent report showed that 85% of all male patients treated in a particular centre with ivermectin in the recent past who went to the laboratory for routine tests were discovered to have developed various forms, grades and degrees of sperm dysfunctions including, low sperm counts, poor sperm morphologies (two heads, Tiny heads Double tails absence of tail’s, Albino sperm calls), azoospermia and poor sperm motility

"Personally speaking, I believe a little delving into the philosophy of science would help scientists understand their own enterprise better" I quoted it earlier.

And this underscores my point. You are admittedly not a physicist much less an experimental physicist, and yet you are making a proclamation about how experimental physicists should go about their jobs. And physicists are hardly alone at getting annoyed when people start telling them how to do their jobs. I think the number of people who never played baseball who are knowledgeable about baseball, to the point at being able to tell an accomplished player (on par with a scientist) is quite small. There is some knowledge you can't appreciate without having done it. “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.” (Hugh Keough)

Which is beside my point. One can't validly make the blanket assertion that scientists, as a whole, would benefit from philosophy, and then carve out such exceptions (oh, we were ignoring experimentalists. And certain aspects of theory. And...) You want to say that people investigating e.g. foundational aspects of science would benefit from philosophy, then sure, go ahead. I think you will find that most of those people are already doing that.

As I have asked before, what philosophy will help me align a laser into a single-mode optical fiber? The issue I have is that the topic is wielded as a blunt instrument. Are there areas of physics where philosophy would be helpful to scientists? Certainly. And I read about some of this, and the scientists are discussing philosophical issues (involving interpretations of QM, for example) But it is often stated such there is the insinuation that every scientist would benefit from adding philosophy to the mix (and worse, IMO, when it comes from people who have demonstrated not understanding the science) and I suspect that is a source of the hostility.

One might ask one's self which of these involve behavior apparent to the minimally-aided eye or simple instrumentation, and which do not.