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?

Indeed, one would. But it is you who has made an absolute statement and that is what I am questioning you about: It is possible to say more. The issue of whether it's possible for new, accurate theories to come to light which contradict what's found in text books is an issue of epistemology. This epistemological discussion is about logic, not data. It is appropriate and rational to make statements about the logic involved.

I haven't dismissed your post and I haven't refused to elaborate on the assumptions I noted, I'm simply focussing on a different task before I return to that. I'm not sure what you mean by "a better science person" but this almost seems like you're putting forward the argument from authority! I don't have my answer from ajb yet; the discussion has stalled after I asked ajb to confirm whether he still maintains that it is not possible for a theory to match nature while contradicting what is found in text books. Yes, I do mind. My purpose in coming here was to understand why ajb made his original statement, "you are better off learning about more accepted ideas". My question was to ajb. I'm willing to follow short side discussions with others but to be blunt my primary concern is with ajb's reasoning and nobody else's. When I've completed the task of understanding ajb's statement, and answered the question ajb asked that I said I would respond to, I'll happily come back and respond to your post.

I did not propose as part of my hypothetical situation that any established theory accurately predicts nature.

The hypothetical situation is that it does contradict. In our hypothetical situation, the reason they've worked so well is because the differences between the models and nature (and so the differences between the models and our new, more accurate and more general model) are: subtle and hithertofore unobserved. Up until now, you have stated that such a theory cannot exist. Now you're using words like "I would expect" and "it would be hard to understand why". Of course it is difficult to envision new physics and new ways of looking at the universe but the issue at hand isn't how easy or difficult it is for us to get our minds around such a revolution in thinking. The issue is whether such a revolution is possible in principle. You have stated that it is not possible. You've stated that any theory that contradicts what is in text books must necessarily not match nature. Do you still maintain that this must be the case?

Assume we have some theory that correctly predicts the behaviour of nature at the macro and atomic scales. The theory contradicts classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity in some extremely subtle and hithertofore unobserved ways and also completely undermines the underlying world view of these theories. It makes the standard model look like phlogiston theory. This is a theory that contradicts "what is found in text books". You've stated that such a theory "will not match nature"; this is, it cannot possibly exist. Why do you believe that?

Why does the fact that the physics community has closely examined the models in text books and found them to be "good" models of nature, necessarily imply that a model which contradicts them does not match nature well? What do you mean by "good" when you say "good models of nature"?

In that case, I still don't understand why contradicting "what you would find in a text book" (except models that are not believed to be realised in nature) necessarily implies that a theory does not match nature well. Why do you believe that must be the case? You stated This is a discussion of people's views, not reasons why a theory must necessarily not match nature.

Why "generally"? Why not "always"? This seems to contradict your previous, absolute statement:

Why do you believe that contradicting "what you would find in a text book" necessarily implies that a theory does not match nature well?

You haven't said what the negative thing is. You've made lots of statements about possibilities that are not necessarily implied. You haven't explained why it's bad to have "a theory that contradicts what is well established". Why do you see it as a bad thing to contradict ? As an attempted aid to communication, I'll give an example of explaining why something is bad as a demonstration of the kind of response that would help me understand what you're saying: I think that people are better off avoiding crossing the street when there is traffic. There is a negative consequence to crossing the street when there is traffic. The negative consequence is that one may be hit by a car as one crosses the street. Being hit by a car will likely be physically painful and psychologically traumatic, both of which are very bad. That is why it is bad to cross the street when there is traffic. It is better to wait until there is no traffic.