cladking

It is merely an opinion based on logic and my own (limited) experience. We see what we believe and in the case of educated scientists we see what we know as derived from models of experiments. If we better understand the nature of these experiments and how our models are constructed we should simply see this as well. We'll better observe the reality if we understand we can't really look at reality directly. We need to recognize that we aren't so much seeking reality but rather its effects on experiment. This is all metaphysics so better understanding of metaphysics should directly translate to a better understanding of the nature of models and of reality itself. This is why I believe metaphysics should be taught from infancy and drilled into them by six or seven. Scientific observation should begin about this time as well. History of science should be taught from 6th grade on and a 7th step should be added to the scientific method; Metaphysical Implications. Perhaps even more importantly we need to better define words and language and create a special language for philosophy where words have but a single meaning. This would be a scientific language at least to the degree it's "repeatable". Everyone won't agree but we also need to train some in generalism as a sort of specialty. We are each a product of our beliefs but we are open to input in these beliefs through education (especially at a young age). We are also a product of language and unfortunately that language is confused. We don't exist because we think but rather we think because we exist. I believe with greater attention to the nature of science most of the world's problems will begin correcting themselves in a few generations.

Mebbe it was because you can't divide by zero. Language defines words and math uses language to phrase the axioms, postulates, and definitions by which it operates. Math is constrained by these definitions before it even begins. Take the concept of "infinity" for example. In the real world the odds against of every event makes the concept of "infinity" seem like a fraction rather than being infinite. In the real world infinity can't be expressed except as a construct or in mathematics. In the real world infinity doesn't even exist. The concept can not be accurately applied to anything at all. There is a finite chance that all the air could "suddenly" be gone in a given area and the larger the area the lower the statistical probability but it will never reach zero even if every molecule is stacked on top of one another all the way to Alpha Centari. In the real world even numbers don't exist because you have to have two things to count. Numbers are constructs used in math and are not real. Such concepts can not be expressed in math we use everyday. They fly in the face of the very definitions and axioms of math so reminding me that 1 + 1 = 2 is simply irrelevant. I'm simply trying to define a perspective from which something different can be seen. I now fear this is getting off topic so won't respond to these points further either. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87618-math-is-never-applicable-to-the-real-world-split-from-is-current-day-math-flawed/?hl=misapplied#entry851246

Lol. Math is always wrong as well. More accurately math is always misapplied. More importantly and more relevantly to your point "math" is not language hence a "statement" can't be formulated at all. ie- Math can't even be wrong when viewed from the perspective of communication. How do you add one red apple eaten last night and one apple that spoiled the bushel? How do you communicate the question, or any question, in math?

It's impossible in modern language to express any complex thought and to be entirely correct in every aspect. Even the simplest thoughts expressed in modern language are open to deconstruction and misinterpretation. "I have one red apple" can have a virtually infinite number of meanings and it's worse if you consider homonyms. The point at which a green apple becomes a red apple during its life is not defined and, of course, all apples never become "red" in anyone's perception. The color "red" is a specific spectra of visible light but we take it as a given from language that all individuals percieve the same "red". Never mind that some people due to genetic or "traumatic" reasons hear the color red or smell it. Calling it an "apple" at all is a sort of appeal to authority since no apples are identical. One can own an apple (and access the net) or one can merely be holding an apple. Every means of having an apple has degrees. If you had an apple after dinner last night it becomes almost impossible to have it taken. No red apple is red on the inside nor are the stems and seeds red. The tree it grew (groes) on is probably never very red. Its roots are not red. The apple probably began its life as a white flower. The apple might be used to begin an apple orchard which would make it a very different apple than the one which rotted and spoiled a bushel. Since we're all wrong all the time and so very little is known we should be seeking the ideas which hold reality together in our minds but the concept of "reality" is excluded from modern science's metaphysics. The idea that reality was determined by perception resulted in an intentional exclusion of perceptions and reality. "Reality" affects science only through its effect on experiment. We build models as a mnemonic to remember these experiments and then tend to accept the models as reality itself. We see and understand the world as these models and see only what we expect and are blind to what we don't expect. We speak and understand in such terms. Effectively we can't speak without appealing to authority and we are necessarily misunderstood as the thoughts we try to express become more complicated. Experts are simply on the cutting edge of the state of the art. They always try to use the same language whether the subject is cosmology or art history. If you are outside this circle or use words that are not current you are marked as being wrong and being a crackpot from the moment you speak. Human knowledge has been divided into countless thousands of specialties but reality is never divided at all. We try to isolate variable for experiment but the real world simply doesn't work this way. Each specialist usually has extensive training in some small aspect of human knowledge and we believe this training reflects reality while, in fact it really just represents an aspect of our model of experiment. Nature has repeating processes that extend throughout its range. Math and its logic is merely an example of an aspect of reality. Since this repetition repeats it's only natural that someone treained in chemistry might have an insight that applies to factory construction or cosmology. A factory sweeper might have an insight that applies to all human existence or the nature of language. Dividing knowledge into specialties is unnatural so it's hardly surprising that it might be noticed. Specialization is necessary due to the huge extent of human knowledge but this specialization has teamed with technology, modelling, and language to cause people to believe they know almost everything. It has caused people to believe that nature behaves laws and that we understand some of these laws. It has caused people to see only what they know and to be blind to everything else. Since we each see only what we know we mistakingly believe we know far far more than we actually do. We each look and see a red apple but we don't realize that a red apple means something very different to different people. I'll probably abandon this thread due to its new location. I do tend to try to support points already made however, so will probably be back iff challenged.

No one will know you're smoking if you just blow the smoke out the windows. Virtual smoke doesn't cause cancer so few will care if they notice. Coffee and doughnuts are only served early though.

Most of what we believe is actually based on opinion. Science is based on axioms but these are expressed in language and most people have lost sight of the metaphysics anyway. Much of what we believe is passed down on our parents' knees while the language comes from our aunts and uncles. We learn a veritable wall of beliefs from teachers. Persective is everything and we are wed to things like cartesian geometry as the foundation of reality itself or that in the beginning God created light. Many of the concepts that are so difficult to understand rewrite the axioms, definitions, or even language itself but few will respond in kind. They simply reiterate their axioms, definitions, and use the same language to say what is the prevailing opinion of the day; the opinion of experts. There is a knee jerk reaction to reject even the simplest concepts if they don't agree with the widely held belief that everything is already known, or at least, that the outline of reality is at our fingertips and is known as theory. Meanwhile people still don't notice that the simplest ideas like "gravity" are still not supported empircally. Measuring something is not the same as understanding it. We measure time but then experts tell us that one moment doesn't even follow another or that it isn't "linear". Everytime anyone speaks he is referencing expert opinion. It's called theory and is (ideally) derived from experiment. Obviously every scientist doesn't support the status quo but "science" does. I'm not competent to judge all these hypotheses bandied about here. Some seem to be obviously crackpots and the individual proposing them has little training or understanding of the subject. Many seem uninterested in learning. The problem is that all are treated the same. I'm beginning to believe that there is little chance of physics or cosmology discovering a unified field theory and that it will arise from philosophy or another branch of science. Perhaps it will look much different than anyone realizes. If it were posted here on this forum tonight I have little doubt it would be ripped to shreds. I've seen several ingenius attempts at it and for all I know maybe one is right. There are several things we all believe that future scientists will probably find remarkably humorous about current science. Some things can't be seen because you're too close and some because you're too far away. And others are merely hidden to your view. I may not see reality but from my vantage is obvious others might not as well. I very much agree. But sometimes these new ideas rewrite everything so the proponent simply has less interest in trying to understand current thought. Some of these folks lack the math skills to understand the state of the art and this is especially true in physics. I sympathize with your viewpoint but from personal experience I know that in some fields expert opinion can be formed with virtually no data at all. How does one challenge expert opinion when that opinion is mere assumption? Not every field of science is as cut and dried as the behavior of a diode or how a geode is formed. Some areas are more about assumption and deconstruction. I guess I must stop here or go off topic.

I'm always "cladking" and I read many of your posts. Oddly enough we seem to usually be on the same page yet we don't often fully agree. I hope to see you around.

I guess it's water under the bridge then. It appears many of the individuals on this site accept expert opinion and assumptions on par with experimental results. If any of these opinions are challenged it is taken as a challenge to experiment and hence to science. If experimental interpretation is challenged it is taken as a challenge to science itself. If models are attacked or it's pointed out that models are not experiment it is taken as a challenge to science. It's only natural for the status quo to be maintained but people should remember if the status quo always prevailed we'd still living in caves. Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

I'm assuming the prohibition against talking about the site is being waived for this thread. I don't believe that moderation in this section is the problem per se. Much of the problem is the culture that has been generated that accepts all science as equally valid and all who doubt or reject the orthodox assumptions as lumbering fools. There's a "piling on" everytime a new subject comes up and negs fly no matter how logical and well evidenced a point happens to be. This isn't a failing of science or scientists but of this particular forum section. When someone presents me with a speculation or new hypothesis I suspend disbelief until I've heard him out. Then I seek the illogic or lack of support for key points. I think most speculators here will feel driven off. Lest someone think I don't like this forum, I really do. It has numerous good points as well including the many people who do understand the state of the art in many categories of modern science. While the tactics for winning arguments are beyond the pale the expertise is real and cogent. In 10th grade I developed a ~64 step proof that any number divided by zero was infinity. It was a thing of beauty. No one had the least interest in it. At best they'd glance at the first and last steps and hand it back. I was about ready to send it off when I discovered the tiniest little flaw where I had assumed the conclusion. Of course it mushroomed and led inexhoribly to the conclusion. Nothing has changed in the least. They are simply hoping some expert will tell them I'm right or I'll discover my error so they don't need to. I'm confident this applies to many people in this section. If their theories make better predictions it will simply be discounted.

Each individual organism is charged with striving for perfection. What's perfect for one individual is wrong for another. This ideal changes with time so the goal is always a moving target.

No one really knows. I believe nature is simply logical and mathematics is the quantification of logic. It's only natural that math can model nature or nature appears to model math. The sole purpose of any science is to make predictions. The degree to which understanding is achieved is the degree to which accurate prediction can be made. Models are merely a sort of mnemonic to remember experimental results. Models are often mistaken for reality and understanding of models mistaken for understanding of nature.

There's probably nothing about human cognition that can't be simulated by a computer if sufficient effort is put into trying. The last and most difficult aspect of human mental ability to be achieved would be intuition because this requires experience and learning to understand where logical steps can be avoided. However there's no such thing as "human intelligence" so it follows there is no such thing as "artificial intelligence". AI is a dead end that will be supplanted by machine intelligence. The most difficult thing for intelligent machines will be understanding humans and human perspectives.

It would seem the alien might be representative of a species that didn't waste its time much. Who's to say what things set their species and their science apart from our own? If he said everything we believe is wrong then it might be trying to teach us something. Even as a non-alien I can agree with the sentiment if he means all "belief" is wrong even when it's based on known science. Science doesn't show reality but the effects of reality. We are trying to come to know reality through its effects on experiment. We might be coming to understand the forces and processes by which nature operates but that doesn't mean our "belief" in scientific theory or its applicability to the real world is "true" or correct. ...Or one man's waste of time can be another's search for reality. One species' "truth" can be another's detour. All "science" might not even be the same but every tool (specific science) determines the type and amount of knowledge that can be gained. It's not the knowledge gained that can be at issue so much as the effectiveness and applicability to the real world. Real knowledge is often misapplied even without errors of logic. The misapplication is usually the result of unknown or ignored variables. Without talking to the alien, asking for definitions and evidence, it will be impossible to understand his meaning.

This specific miscommunication was principally my fault. I should have made it clear that one party can be chiefly responsible. However, I've used the word "theory" to mean human scientific knowledge so many times that I believed this would be apparent to readers. More importantly, I believe this is the only meaning that fit logically in the sentence so in my opinion is the apparent meaning. I'm involved on one side or another of a great deal of miscommunication so I never assume it's the other guy's fault. But then I've also observed two individuals having a conversation about two different subjects and neither noticing it. I know for a fact that there's a great deal of miscommunication going on and I believe I'm more sensitive to it than most. I may well cause more than most, as well. If I ever meet an alien I almost expect him to tell me everything I believe is wrong. He'd have no way of knowing I don't believe much of anything. I might even find his comment humorous even if it wasn't a joke.

My theory is that everyone should try to grasp theory whether the subject is factual or theoretical. Miscommunication is pervasive everywhere and is never the fault of one party. It takes two to miscommunicate. Indeed, if an alien tells you that scientific theory is all wrong then there's a fair chance he isn't expressing himself well or you misundersrtand him. Perhaps he's stating the case well enough and you aren't following the conversation. Of course, it's usually going to be a combination of both when aliens say science is all wrong. Or it's going to be an incomprehensible joke or it will be a different perspective. One thing it's not is literally true from a scientific perspective. Facts are facts whether you grew up on earth or Alpha Centari.

This would hardly be unusual. To me "theory" is akin to "human knowledge" or "state of the art". Of course, neither of these terms presupposes accuracy or correctness in my mind especially as the subject (specific art) drifts off toward the soft sciences. State of the art knowledge is far more likely to be wrong where premises are more poorly defined and more assumptions exist in foundational beliefs. But in the hard sciences, especially those which can be manipulated mathematically, state of the art (theory) is the sum total of all experiment and (proper) observation. This state of the art is unassailable in its entirety even though every single piece is always open to being rewritten. It's hardly impossible it's all wrong and reality isn't reflected in experiment or even that all experiment is misinterpreted but this might be no more likely than stepping into a vacuum on your evening stroll. Frankly, I probably have less confidence in any given fact than almost anyone but I have no doubt at all about the scientific method and its applicability to understanding nature. It's also ironic that it's only the second best science but I'll save this to when it's more appropriate.

I nearly didn't respond at all because we are so close to a semantical argument. But "theory" by definition requires experiment agree with it. It seems you're much closer to agreeing with the alien than I am. If the alien presented you with empirical evidence that scientific theory is wrong you'd change your mind whereas I'd simply assume he was using his "magic" to fool me. It would be impossible for me to accept the idea science is wrong without completely reorganizing everything I know. It would require a great deal of proof and then some time before I had an opinion about anything at all.

If "theory" doesn't agree with experiment then it's no longer theory. I would be highly disinclined to put any constraints whatsoever on nature; not so much because I consider it blasphemous which I do, but because so little of nature/ reality is known that it's presumptuous to believe it must be right or that it always behaves the same way. I think that for all practical purposes we must consider established theory to explain observation and we must always be vigilant to see where observation differs from that reality. By the same token I believe we should assume a perspective from outside of our knowledge and understanding of theory to better attend to these anomalies. I believe this perspective, metaphysics, and observation should be taught from a very young age to all students who are predisposed to science and who are naturally skeptical. To each his own.

Perhaps I should have said "theory" can't be wrong. Of course this statement wouldn't have been strictly true either because theory can be incomplete, true only in limited applications, or misinterpreted. It simply seemed easier to say science can't be wrong and leave each reader to fend for himself. You sound like me now. Next you'll be saying language is confused and math can't be properly applied to reality.

He's probably telling a joke and you should laugh politely if you don't get it. Science can't be wrong because experiment reflects reality. Our understanding of experiment and how we extrapolate its results can be wrong, and I believe it is, but experiment itself and the observation that leads to it is "right".

Let me answer in a few hundred years.

We all see what we believe. We can only see confirmation of our beliefs most of the time. Progress individually and collectively comes from seeing the anomalies but these tend to be invisible. "Suppression" isn't so much a collective event in science due to its nature. "Science" isn't founded on belief so scientists are more likely to see truth as it comes into the light. Science has tools like math for identifying truth which is merely logical statements about reality. But scientists are still human beings and still think like other human beings today. "Suppression" is the blindness imposed on al of us by our own beliefs and is mostly an individual thing in science. Whether you believe in one God or that two gods plus two gods equal four gods or even that two plus two equals four you are still a product of your beliefs and still see the world in terms of those beliefs. It is exceedingly difficult to see any sort of reality directly or to see anything that you don't already know. This is what observation is about; seeing what's there without preconceptions and without perspective.

You're seeing this in terms of "science". You're seeing the methodology required to build on existing science/ theory. And you're understanding it all in terms of models and existing paradigms. Many times new ideas simply spring from new facts or new perspectives rather than scientific methodology. Saying they aren't "science" isn't necessarily accurate. Yes, often they aren't subjected to the rigors of experiment, mathematical proof, or normal methodology but this hardly means such ideas aren't "scientific" in nature or that they are wrong. If I hypothesize that "bigfoots" are descended from alpine Neanderthals then the problem is lack of a specimen to study moreso than that there might exist a more reasonable explanation of how bigfoot arose. That the evidence they exist at all is poor at best is irrelevant to their na- ture or their ability to survive. Sometimes reason puts the onus of proof on the contention and sometimes on existing models or dogma. Progress always arises as ideas of individuals and often the same idea pops up in many locals. If a yeti appeared then many people might recognize its ancestry. Such is the nature of progress. Until something is proven to be consistent with theory derived from experiment it is simply a mod- el for understanding. Much of what we believe has little to do with experiment and everything to do with beliefs. Even experiment can be misinterpreted. We "know" far less than people think we do. Science isn't successful because it generates knowledge. If we depended on knowledge We couldn't have built the pyramids or put a man on the moon because we don't know what gravity is. Science is successful because reality asserts itself through (in) experiments and we model this reality to gain ever more knowledge which results in ever more experiments. It is the ability to perform the "magic trick" of manifesting experiment outside the lab as tech- nology that is the basis of science's success. We don't need to know why something works to build it into a machine.

All evidence is subject to interpretation. We order evidence to create models and then see the world in terms of these models. The models are never the reality itself and the evidence and math are never clean fits to support the models which means no new evidence will perfectly support the model either. The model will simply evolve to better support these new facts. Nobody is really trying to impede progress or prevent observation of the reality, we are all simply a "servant" of what we already think we know. Our "understanding" (modelling) has given us tremendous creature comfort and has seemed to set the universe at our feet so we have no desire to give up hard won progress in any field or belief system. We each would like to build on the system and many make a career of it so we each have a strong tendency to protect the vehicle we're trying to improve. In the modern world one's position in the establishment often hinges on his ability to protect this status quo. Being first to support new ideas is highly risky to your place within the field. So long as there is real "progress" in the sciences "reality" will always find more ways to assert itself until the establishment is forced to accept it. The problem in so many discussions both virtual and otherwise is that the participants are talking past one another. Naysayers latch onto irrelevancies and though they are proof positive the assertion is wrong. We all seem to be reading from different pages of the same book. Rather than examing premises and seeking agreement we are all trying to present our beliefs as reality itself. Add in confusion, misapprehension, and miscommunication and it's a wonder there is any progress at all. It's a wonder people can't see the wonder of it.

The problem is that people have a knee jerk reaction to support the status quo. Whether you believe in ghosts, gods, or science your beliefs are always being reinforced by observation and new learning. You simply will lose track of the reasons and methods for obtaining knowledge. The more fundamental the premises being attacked the greater the amplitude of the jerk. It's not as difficult having your most cherished beliefs shaken as it is having your fundamental definitions, axioms, and premises laid bare.