swansont

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.

It's not just mirrors. A heated gas will not give you a population inversion, which is a requirement for lasing. A neon tube won't lase without adding helium, so you can get He excitations by electron collisions and transfer of this excitation energy to the neon. More importantly, this has nothing to do with laminar flow.

citation needed.

I think it’s accurate to say physicists* use some vocabulary that doesn’t mean what a lay use of those words mean. Physicists also use jargon, because they understand what the jargon means, and in both cases if you hear the discussion without an appreciation for this, you will not get the same message. So yes, physicists might speak differently to a lay audience, for fear of being misunderstood. *(true of all scientists, not just physicists)

The gymnastics was constrained by math and (in part) existing theory, which was supported by evidence.

Can you post the info here, so we don’t have to wade through a video?

You didn’t explain why your numbers are physically relevant.

To this I would add that even if one person thinks a particular model is reality (especially if its their theory), it doesn’t mean that this is true of all of physics. “this bit is real” says nothing about the rest. (plus all the counterexamples, of course)

You mentioned antigravity, and cited a fifth force as if it were an accepted thing. You agree that expansion is not a force, so your question/comment makes no sense, because you refer to it as a force. You can’t have it both ways. Expansion adds space between two objects, so they move apart, even if locally there is no motion. Space doesn’t exert a force on them. They don’t move apart if they are gravitationally bound, because space doesn’t exert a force on them.

I’m not sure “preference” tells the story here. It’s where the ideas led him. A spinning wheel’s circumference can’t be described by 2pi*r owing to length contraction leads you to a non-Cartesian system. Add to this the notion that don’t feel gravity in freefall, you feel a force of something else when you aren’t in freefall, leads you to the idea that being stationary in a gravitational field is the accelerated frame.