rah

I apologise for writing this.

Alas

I understand. I think you are not conscious of the fact that there is no way to determine what percentage of the behaviours of nature have been observed through experimentation. I don't have any objection to learning what is established first. You're assuming that because I questioned your statement it means I have some differing opinion. This is not a given. As noted, my goal was to understand why you were presenting your view, a view I saw as patently steeped in scientism. My goal was not to express a disagreement with teaching. That said, unlike yourself, I acknowledge the limitations of science. I also have an awareness that learning about any particular subject changes your perception of the world, in a very real neurological sense. Becoming inducted into a particular way of thinking can make it so that your brain literally cannot see evidence that contradicts what has been learned (see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a discussion of this phenomenon.) With that in mind, I can see that a person who has the intelligence and rationality to independently develop a new, physical theory of nature that surpasses and even contradicts existing theory, could have such a development stopped through the limitations imposed by induction in established theory. I am not foolish enough to assume that present science enables any kind of assessment how much more of nature there is to be revealed. I would not like to guess whether the future lies in a refinement of established theory or a new paradigm originating from a genius who was never inducted into established theory. However, I am not as presumptuous as to discount either possibility. And for the record, it is rah, BSc. (Hons), MSc. I would bother trying to add "PhD" to that list if I didn't know that the prevailaing mode of thought within academia is the same kind of obstinate narrow-mindedness that's been displayed by ajb.

This is not true. That you maintain it is irrational. Again, that lack of recognition is a symptom. No ...

That's the problem. The fact that you cannot escape from your bounded views to address the epistimological questions that are being asked of you, is a symptom of the psychological problem. I also asked whether you have any vested interest in either the physics community or more general science community. Looking at your profile, you have a PhD in mathematics and are currently looking for positions. That's a vested interest.

Indeed. This is our conversation as I see it: <ajb> X is not possible <rah> why is X not possible? <ajb> X is not possible <rah> why not? <ajb> the probability of the inverse of X, ~X, is very high <rah> but if the probability of ~X is not 1, the probability of X is not 0, therefore while it might be improbable by your assessment, it is at least possible right? <ajb> no, X is not possible <rah> why not? <ajb> I expect X is not possible <rah> my question is about logic, not your expectations; do you acknowledge that even though you expect X is not possible, it could be possible? <ajb> there is something wrong with this discussion <rah> there is nothing wrong with this discussion <ajb> X is not possible because Y <rah> why must it be the case that Y is true? <ajb> Y is true <rah> why? <swansont> I love lamp! <ajb> the probability of Y is very high <rah> but if the probability of the inverse of Y, ~Y, is not 0, then surely you must acknowledge that it is possible? <ajb> no, I find it hard to believe that ~Y is true <rah> my question is about logic, not your beliefs; do you acknowledge that ~Y could be possible? <ajb> I believe Y is true <rah> but do you acknowledge that it could possibly be false? <ajb> I don't like this line of questioning, we're just going round in circles I think I understand now the state of mind behind your original assertion that one should learn accepted ideas first. You seem to be displaying a pathological avoidance of publically acknowledging the epistemological limitations of physics and science in general. There seems to be a psychological barrier here. I'd like to make a final query: does any part of your income come directly from either the physics community or the more general science community? Do you have any vested interests in either of these communities?

Again, you're now talking about your beliefs. This is different to the absolute statements you've made up until now: Here you are implicitly acknowledging the possibility of a large deviation being observed, in contradiction to your previous statements. I'd like to clarify this point and make it explicit because I think it's very important: Do you acknowledge the epistemological possibility of new observations being made that contradict what is found in text books?

Why must it have been seen? Why does "a lot" of testing necessarily imply that there are no more large deviations to be observed?

I can't see where your answer is. Could you possibly restate it?

I asked why deviations (between the model and nature) must have been observed. You've said that deviations would not be explained by errors in "the experiment". However, for deviations to require an explanation, they would have to have been observed. So, in answer to my question "why must the deviations have been observed?", you have answered "because when they were observed, they would have been unexplainable". This doesn't make sense; I'm asking you why they would have been observed in the first place. The subject of my question is an assumption that you're actually making in responding to the question. I'll restate my question a little more fully: Why must deviations have necesarily been observed?

Why would they have been observed?

So then, do you acknowledge that it is possible for there to be new observations that contradict what is found in text books?

Why would we have seen them already? We may have seen some particular deviations, but you're making another absolute statement here that if there were any more deviations then it must be the case that we would have seen them. Why must it be the case that we would have seen them?

You've presented your expectations about nature, you haven't explained the logic behind your assertion that it cannot be possible. What has happened in the past is not a limit on what can happen in the future.

Let me rephrase my question and please note that this question is about what is possible, not about your beliefs or expectations: Do you maintain that it is impossible for new observations to be made that contradict what is found in text books?