kristalris

I see that I stated to agree with the Wikipedia quote where I took existential statements to be linked to word salad yet it is linked to existential quantification. So you are correct there. Though that eq is as such correct the page is now incomplete. It should of been linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth). And that can be done even in science in word salad. And yes also in physics when discussing what is the correct procedure in lieu of funding. The latter has nothing as such to do with physics other than that if you don't or incorrectly fund it, due to following an incorrect scientific procedure it will have a ill effect on the furtherance of physics. I guess we can at least agree on that? Otherwise the reasoning is circular. Like I stated earlier yes you can put all words into digital mathematics. This doesn't mean that science is only about mathematics. Or, that science isn't about proof. To prove something simply means that you (formally) except something to be true. This doesn't mean that you accept it as absolutely true. You can state the accepted fault rate given that you hold something to be true. Or you can assume an acceptable fault rate if the proof is only done in words. You only take it as absolutely true in the subsequent logical reasoning or mathematical formula. Now if you are in a scientific debate concerning correct scientific procedure in detail on the procedure of how to define problems as a part problem of how to fund science, then you have to take certain things as to be true. In a debate all parties are bound to strive to ascertain common ground. Common ground i.e. that the debaters hold for true doesn't have to be proven. Participants are thus honor bound to state position and can not sit back and state nothing and simply dispute everything. (Hence to show that this would be unreasonable I gave the example of stating that humans don't exist, forcing me to prove that.) Common sense doesn't need proof unless disputed. It doesn't then need scientific proof when there is none to be had, yet might provide a reason to do scientific research. Common sense can be set aside by even a non intuitive scientific position. It's common sense to not infringe on any scientific fact. This again doesn't mean that anything you do or don't do even in science or physics must be scientifically proven. I.e. you should always use common sense even as the basis of science given this proviso. Again it isn't common sense to conflict with science. So if I state that DM is a substandard definition, for the reasons I stated earlier. Then it is fair to ask if you agree on this or not. I'm now not shore what your position is. Is it yes it is substandard but it is of no or negligible consequence? Or are you stating no, it is a perfect definition of this problem? You need to state what your position is so that I know if and what I have to prove. Because otherwise I'm entitled to take implicit positions by you at their face value, without doing a strawman. You must state your position in order for us to ascertain the scope of the discussion. If you fail in doing so, you can't subsequently claim a strawman by me. A strawman would be that I willfully misrepresent your position. But not if I fill in an implicit or logically assumed position where you fail in your obligation to search common ground. So what is exactly your position concerning the definition of DM?

"The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem" This detail (about the use of correct definitions) isn't that then one of the earlier ones?. I guess that what keeps us divided as a misunderstanding then is that you expect me to show that science has crashed and that I state that I can suffice in showing that the chance of a crash has been raised needlessly during a longer period without positive result and not to be excluded negative results (i.e. crash). Yes and no. A hypotheses inherently takes itself to be absolutely true (even-though it inherently isn't). Logic / mathematics dictate to be filled as a garbage non garbage input to be fed with absolute truths i.e. facts. Before proving a hypothesis in an argument one should agree on the hypothesis otherwise what is then the need of the exercise? I prove something based on not agreed facts. If you can't find any a priori common ground then it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. If you don't agree that people exist then the hypothesis I posed is meaningless. So if we agree this and that I predict and thus will prove such and so being the probandum given a standard of proof of (a norm) a posterior odds higher than this (that can also be stated in word salad.). The latter shows how much risk you are taking by showing the amount of fails you accept. Logically this acceptable risk can also be taken as no action or non-action to be acceptable that raises the risk. The Wikipedia quote you agree on shows that a proof can also be given in science without mathematics. I.e. in word salad. So if I show a raised risk based on evidence that is current science I've proved position on this appropriate standard of proof. Proof based on word salad is inherently educated guesswork. Educated guesswork that reasonable people will agree on provided common ground can be found as to priors. Simply questioning all priors isn't reasonable. You can then as said question everything, even our existence. If you do that then no one can prove anything anymore. You need to determine common ground prior to any proof. Dependent on common ground and standard of proof I have. This is a very common formula in risk assessment. Apart from that it is simple logic. You don't have to put the mathematics into it, word salad will suffice: If you want to fly safely (keep the risk of a crash to a possible minimum) in aircraft exclude all unnecessary chances that even might heighten this. I.e. if you do something that you are not shore is inconsequential it is prohibited. The more you don't want the bad chance (consequence) the more effort is needed to keep the chance down. I.e. raising the chance and even possibly raising the chance in key issues that you don't want happening forces you not to take that chance, even if it is very small. The possible consequences i.e. risk is to great. Don't tell e this is new for you? Textbook basic psychology. But I have come to the conclusion that I don't even need this to prove my point. Sorry have to go, can't save this so I'll post and react to the rest later.

I'm fully aware of that. That is in fact of what the argument is about. Whether physics like all other sciences should use different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. I.e. for instance to decide whether or not a concept is proven or not. This in fact has to do with the amount of risk you are willing or should take (using for instance public money). I.e. what percentage of failed tests should you accept. So if you place the standard of proof for that as high as you would in order to discern if a theory is proven, then you in fact say that physics doesn't have a concept level, in the sense that such a level warrants any systematic different way of funding. The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence and then click to scientific methode where you will see what I'm stressing: Hypothesis development Main article: Hypothesis formation An hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena. Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic. Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology. William Glen observes that the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.[56] In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable amongst a group of equally explanatory hypotheses. I agree on this. I guess you including Swansont and Bignose don't. Now you et all are stressing I guess the link anecdotal evidence. I will again show in my reaction to them both that I adhere to a Baysian probabilistic reasoned proof in which you can / must a priori agree upon how much risk you must take. And not act as if there is only one standard of proof. I've proved that DM is a sloppy definition. You still defend that DM is okay as a definition. Thus no strawman when I say that you thus defend a sloppy definition by defending DM. The formula (again) is: Risk = chance x consequence. This is (again) the standard of proof I need to meet. If I prove on basis of scientific readily established facts in psychology that the risk of an inhibition in science will rise when you use a sloppy definition like DM, then that is evidence that will let the risk in the formula rise and readily prove my case. You may take that as proof leading to the conclusion that you shouldn't use DM as a definition in science. (You could and should of spotted this immediately, that DM is a sloppy definition, but anyway.) You simply aren't allowed to take such risks in science. Period. The evidence in psychology is that DM points in a direction, that isn't as yet proven to be correct, thus the science of psychology shows that you run this risk of not spotting the correct direction to investigate. This already proves my point. What you want is for me to prove that we would of already had solved DM if it were not for a wrong definition, or what? Do you think that is the appropriate standard of proof to tell you that it was wrong to accept DM as a definition in the first place? I.e. that you (science) should stop using it, that science should be more careful in the future and that if you take this as a fact that there then is a reason for that that needs to be addressed. Edit: Psychological science can be taken as evidence and thus fact, and is thus not moot. Edit: See above. If I show psychological evidence and take that as fact of a rising risk I've proven the case on the standard of proof that is applicable in the above given formula. Science shows that before flight in an aircraft you should't smere unknown substances in or on your aircraft as a dark matter. Science shows this even if it isn't stated in the flight manual that you shouldn't do this. You run a risk that you shouldn't be taking. I don't then have to prove that the dark matter that still is being spread has already crashed an aircraft as proof. Or do you think I should then? So in science you use correct definitions, period. Al the more so on key issues such as DM. You (science) haven't so there is something wrong in physics that has caused you lot to do this. You keep on smereing dark matter definitions on your aircraft saying we don't see the problem. The science of psychology tells you there is a problem with that. And it is not systematically correct to use incorrect definitions. Science per definition is about working systematically. It is thus unscientific to use incorrect definitions. Period.

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of standards of proof and probabilistic reasoning. Anyway, given the definitions I gave the proof I've given is neigh absolute because pure logic given as yet undisputed facts. I would have to repeat myself. You are the one that simply states something without even a semblance of a substantiated argument. So you can say that my probandum is incorrect; Or you can state that the statements I've taken as fact are not to be taken as such. But then you will have to say which these are.And state why these are not to be taken as a fact. Of course you can place a near absolute proof standard of proof on the acceptance of facts that would be deemed such by most scientists who's fields the facts concern and people in general as well. In that way apart from standards of proof that can be reached in physics nothing at all could be proven. This because inherently physics can reach higher standards because it is performed in a field where you usually can measure what you are doing very well. Alas the later not always and then you should apply different standards of proof. As is done in all / most other parts of science. You can say that the formula I used is incorrect or incorrectly used.

You stated earlier on that I had to provide evidence. It is subsequently purely practical that we don't have an argument on what I should prove or not. The second point I introduced BTW after an earlier remark of yours. So I just took it along in my stride. Well I'll take it that you agree then that I have to prove this and that I thus have not shirked from my burden of proof. If you had read my point you would have noticed that I already dealt with this contingency in the - explication - on the given proof. I.e. that there are creative people who do spot, or are not subdued by the boss or crowd rule and who are "crank" enough to spot the duck even after to have been shown rabbits. If you understand the subsequent probabilistic effects of this that is on a key issue you are diminishing the probability of this happening in stead of trying to heighten these chances. ​Especially wise people who want to get things done will indeed shrike from giving their opinion. And wait an opportunity do do so. In fact you get more serious cranks that still participate. Now before you wisecrack I don't have anything to loose. I'm not a scientist, or physicist or mathematics. So it doesn't take that much guts for fear of consequence to stand up for proper science. You are defending the indefensible position that sloppy definitions doesn't matter. They do as I pointed out with the undisputed appropriate formula I gave prior to my proof. See above. Now you take an elaboration and further explanation on my part as being part of the proof. I didn't present it as such. So on the actual given proof you pose no argument. Want to try again to do so?

I will answer both Bignose and Swansont's last posts in this post. For I already agreed that I have to provide the evidence and proof. Now first of all let’s agree on the probandum: Physics is following incorrect scientific procedure by ill / incorrectly defining key issues such as DM. This has a significant negative impact on the furtherance of science. Then we have to agree on what standard of proof is appropriate? To correctly determine this the rule IMO applies: risk = chance x consequence Can we agree that solving key issues as quickly as possible is of paramount consequence? I say it is, thus the chance of a mistake must be made if possible zero or near zero in order not to run a risk or an as small as possible risk. So proving that a formal substandard formulation exists of DM already provides the slightest chance of a negative consequence where a correct alternate has been provided. (There is BTW a clear misunderstanding as if I’m stating that dark matter isn’t matter. It is missing i.e. unobserved matter in my opinion. But that is beside the point. Even if I’m thoroughly convinced that DM is in fact matter, I am on formal grounds not allowed to make it part of the definition. The definition must be neutral in that effect, as I already stated. For it could be that a massless matter less force is causing the perceived missing gravity. According to Krauss anyway with his something from nothing. I’m convinced that it isn’t but the definition dark matter already excludes that possibility. And this is also close to the notion that all matter has mass and that all mass exerts gravity. Which is also implied in this definition and it doesn’t necessarily have to be so) If a perfect definition can be reached it should be because it is not negligible. Dark matter is not a perfect definition because it holds part of the probable answer in the definition of the problem, where a perfect definition is possible. This proves point 1. Now to the question of significant impact: words and math’s. By the word salad definition dark matter and subsequent word salad you define what the symbols in the mathematics stand for. For in these symbols only otherwise meaningless numbers are put and generated. The word salad gives the numbers meaning and word salad decides what formula’s to use or are to be developed. So correct as possible use of word salad is essential for preventing a garbage in problem into the mathematics. (Now you could try and reason that all word salad can be put into digital mathematics. Yet you are then in fact saying let a computer do it all and take the human out of the loop. I guess you both don’t imply this. Well humans think in word salad on issues what to put into the mathematics.) Now to prove that this is indeed as such not a small but a only significant but even large problem: The science of Psychology: Take a large group of people and show them a lot of pictures of rabbits. Then show them this picture http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rabbit-DuckIllusion.html and ask them what they see. A great many will see the rabbit and nothing more. Some creatively intelligent good observers would also spot the duck. (and of course the ones that already are familiar with it). In the control group you show them a great many pictures of ducks. Then show them the same picture. You will consistently observe that then much more ducks are observed even when repeating the test. In short you can already see where this psychological data is leading: if you define the problem into what beast is this or better what is this? The chance is greater of actually spotting the two possibilities instead of one. And this is also repeatedly seen if you don’t show any prior information. So in order to enhance the chance of correctly solving the DM problem you should correctly define the problem, because it makes it more difficult for the brain to know what is asked of it. This problem is greater for some than others. Conscientious people don’t see the problem as much and the way they are causing problems for more open minded people. They are more spot the dot then spot the picture. Like I stated earlier you could take the simpler version that is depicted under the other one and give a lot of dots instead of the line. They are good at taking in all the data but are also very susceptible to authority and group pressure. On this I will elaborate. Furthermore the group psychology comes into play. DM shows what the boss wants to see and that you don’t get cookies if you don’t show that you are on the team. You see this I guess in the negative points I got in my last posts. My cookies were even withheld from me. Punishing me for daring to even imply that DM doesn’t exist or to question science as it is at the moment. Whereas I’m not even doing that concerning the existence of DM but quite the contrary. This is all due to the way we know that our brain works. Unwittingly your brain is guessing for you in order to make good sense of your surroundings. Now we also know that not everybody does this in the same way. There are different talents involved in perceiving the world: Talent for numbers; I for instance don’t have that as much and thus thought I’d better not continue with mathematics after high school. This I concluded when I was working on an integral and ended up with where I started. I asked my math’s teacher and he said you should of divided with 37. I asked how should I’ve seen that. He: well you should of. Anyway I had to work very hard at it to keep up. There are people who have an extremely low ability with numbers and are diagnosed via DSM to have dyscalculia. These people lose out in our current society. They are deemed stupid. In Africa there are tribes that have a lot of dyscalculia. They thus have clearly been able to survive on other traits. And yet there are I’m told great mathematicians with dyscalculia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia Talent for dimensions; Now for that I do have a knack. Way ahead of my class with geometry without having to work at it. Now I observed in my class some kids that were extremely good with numbers and totally fell out with geometry. In later years this made me wonder, could it be that Mother Nature sais – at every level of quickness of brain that also comes into play – if you are exceptionally good at numbers you wouldn’t be at geometry and vice versa. With others averaged in both areas? That is a speculation yet we know that we know a lot about the brain but there is much more we don’t know. The exact workings of the brain are one of the most difficult issues of science. Talent for perceiving movement; what is this dynamic process which we observe doing? Talent for colour; what would someone who is gifted with this see for nuance structures in Hubble pictures? Just like people with a knack of numbers see structures in numbered data? Such a person might not even be aware of this talent, because only if differences arise would one notice. Why would we have that? Well it is good to quickly spot the tiger in the grass before it pounces and alert the group. And all the other talents and combinations thereof in relation to the relevant data. People who are talented for the creativity to fill in the missing data spot the line for a good hypothesis are open minded as psychology teaches us. They are also deemed cranks. Like Newton, Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci are also deemed cranks by DSM. Also people who dare take greater risks are also deemed crank. You can also see this in the way science has defined certain definitions: The definition of Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science The first given definition I agree on: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in…..) Science must be systematic. Well using substandard definitions when perfect definitions are possible then by this definition it is thus unscientific. Furthermore it is not only about predictions but like I already pointed out also about testable explanations and predictions in order to further this systematic endeavour to collect more data. This shows that correct use of word salad definitions forces you to act differently. Even though word salad isn’t as succinct as mathematics. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t really matter how you define things. It does, even and I would say especially so in physics. We can observe that hardly anyone if at all in science is even trying to answer the big questions. The one who states that such a thing is unscientific / useless is the one who has the burden of proof to prove that. Forinstance TOE is also not defined correctly: because it is only used in a historic and not as required by science in a systematic way: venturing to explain all fundamental forces in nature in one theory via testable predictions. You don’t even have a definition that covers that what you should be doing. Subsequently you reason that it would be unscientific / pointless in trying. Hence no funding, hence a self-fulfilling prophesy. Who says a current Leonardo da Vinci wouldn’t be able to get us close to a TOE (including DM & DE) if he dared to or was in a position to? Even though say a thousand of people like I that are but a thousandth of a Leonardo it would still pay off to try. On average you would even then generate one idea that helps. We don’t know if what Mother Nature is doing is not an illusion that if you see how she does it, it will all seem ridiculously simple. As with good illusionists. If you don’t try and test, you’ll never know. That is irrational unsystematic and thus unscientific. It needs to be funded. This costs very little if done the way I pointed out earlier. So it should be done that way. Unless you don’t agree with the given definition by Wikipedia.

I'm sorry that you think I've been disrespectful to you. I haven't. I posed argument at what you stated. We don't disagree on the matter that science is done by making falsifiable predictions (you keep on only talking about predictions) and gathering data on that. We also agree that language even if used correctly can be seen from the viewpoint of unambitious rigors of mathematics as word salad. However even word salad has standards that must be adhered to. It is not so that if it is only word salad it doesn't matter how you define it. It does. Again before going in to the proof that you want, it is proper to first ascertain and therefore for you to acknowledge the fact that the definitions on scientific issues in physics are not defined in a perfect way even though it is possible to do so. As I've shown and you in fact already implicitly have acknowledged. Again: dark matter and dark energy are defined wrong because it is not defined in a neutral way as to the problem and not already containing a presumed answer. So is GR as if it doesn't contain a law or laws of Nature. It always works and will remain working as such whatever future research will show, so it contains a law or laws. This is a formal procedural point. Formal points (on procedure thus) can be split from the material points i.e. if it is important or not. You can't say ah it could of been defined perfectly in words but it is not important so it is correct. And indeed perfect in words isn't as unambitious as mathematics can be but still. This problem on mathematics can't be solved with mathematics. First the words then the maths.

Only in part correct thus wrong. Science is not only data driven it is also missing data driven. Missing data must be filled in via words that are put into the subsequent mathematics. What you are saying is only correct on production questions: those are indeed only data driven. No research needed. Research is inherently always thus also missing data driven and thus guess driven, which is done by words. If a definition can be perfect it must be perfect. Adequate is incorrect i.e. wrong. The definitions at hand can be and thus require perfection. You and Swansont have in fact already conceded that physics hasn't defined these issues perfectly. Now again do you concede that science has formalities on the way you define things or do you indeed think you can formally proceduraly muck around in that field because you assume it to be of negligible consequence?

Research as to where the limits of the laws are. Within the limits it will always be a law whatever happens. Meaning it can be taken as true within those limits. It might however become an old law. This is simple logic. In science you should use the same scientific method of defining procedures for not running into a interdisciplinary problems. Dark = don't know Matter = we know it is missing matter => that is a contradiction: You can think this to be adequately defined because probably true, yet correct definition would entail that you define what you agree to be a central problem (any problem should be correctly and not merely adequately defined). Say you were the first to have spotted this phenomenon then Dark Swansont would be an apt sticker being absolutely neutral as to what it could be and only describing a problem. To solve problems like these you should keep an open mind and it is then best not to make it more difficult for the brain to deal with incorrect definitions. Again if you want to call it the law of GR or the laws of GR is up to you physicists. Not naming something that is held to be neigh absolutely true within as yet not fully defined limits is incomprehensible. And can and thus will (and has) lead to serious errors in reasoning. When Bignose has reacted I'll prove that to you both. You stated earlier on to be somewhat sympathetic on calling it laws and then you shirked back on that. Stating it to be a side issue. Well then you in fact agree. My expertise is irrelevant on the issue at hand. Being that physicists have problems with correct use of word salad whereas it is of critical importance as it is word salad that decides what is to go into the mathematical formula's. If you do this incorrectly your brain has to constantly correct the mistake. If you don't make such mistakes your brain doesn't have to do that and that enhances the chance that you actually solve the dark problem. In science it is important to have your definitions not only adequately but always correctly defined. Otherwise it is an incorrect scientific procedure. Being the issue, so Q.E.D. If you ignore part of what is stated then it tends to be taken as agreeing with it, if you don't explicitly say that you don't want to react. Ignoring is dodging the issue.

Now what were we talking about? Quote kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said: Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. EQ This I stated in another thread. Then you said QOUTE: Cannot disagree more. EQ You posed argument concentrated on fraud and conspiracy in science as being irrelevant as far as I recall, to which I agreed . And you concluded: THAT'S Science! if I'm correct. Then this thread split off: Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics. Now if I understand you correctly do you now implicitly concede that science / physics has indeed incorrectly defined the fundamental formulas not as laws, yet wish to state that this is just a slight infringement on a formality with no material effect or consequence and thus unimportant? If then Q.E.D.. You all infringe on correct scientific procedure. Procedure being inherently about the formalities. Just to narrow it down, first concede this. Then I will prove what you ask me, okay?

Of course not. As stated again and again and even acknowledged by you (this is surreal (not really but anyway)) laws are only valid within their known or always assumed LIMITS. The search in science for which funding is needed is to find these limits. This would only be relevant (in fact it is a fallacy of authority by you) if you explicitly state that DM & DE aren't central problems of physics. Do you state that? And are they in your more than expert opinion correctly defined? BTW aren't you dodging the issue?

It matters what it is called because it hits the funding and thus the speed at which problems are solved. Actually come to think of it it is actually quite hilarious. The strongest laws ever devised / discovered by man (in casu by physicists for crying out loud) in practical Nature are not defined by physicists as such. Well it does prove that physicists are not quite aware about the broader context in which they are trying to further science. I.e the knowledge about history, human behavior (physicists are probably human, anyway I think they are) and language such as word salad logic and the funding and the way that leads to behavior of physicists flaming and bullying (not in this site as such) other physicists/ scientists (Hubble) & laymen, and the behavior of taxpayers being voters and politicians that mostly provide that funding. Also the ignorance about evidence and proof concerning issues where it is clear that insufficient data are available yet decisions are being and should be made. (I.e. of the soft statistics of probabilistic reasoning) And again that physicists obviously have problems in getting their word salad definitions in order dark matter and dark energy, both central problems are incorrectly defined. Physicists should be bloody ashamed of themselves! (And exceedingly proud as well BTW)

Thanks for the link and your criticism The Wikipedia page should get added another used meaning of word salad, for it only has it's literal meaning. As used quite frequently by people who can do math's in forums like this one, as a derogatory remark implying that an argument is made on a topic that requires mathematics in their opinion. However concise, or correctly worded or whatever. You can then also add the way I used it as a reappropriation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation Because I'm Dutch I don't feel obliged to further a Wikipedia page on English language. Now I might get the criticism (not by you BTW) that I'm doing semantics again. I.e. imply or state that someone uses semantics to produce a fallacious argument. Just stating that without showing that is just that: fallacious. This use of word salad (as a reappropriation: i.e.meaning: "correctly worded argumentation") in the concept faze is indeed at the heart of the problem, in science in general and physics especially. It is at the heart of a circular argument (in general and not by you BTW) and thus a fallacy. In short hand then: Concept level physics => only words no math's = word salad = wrong => words and math's = right. Concept level physics = what to put into mathematics faze => words and mathematics = wrong => only words is right. Now your critique on the length of the worded posts is correct when trying to communicate with highly conscientious people who usually have a directive communication style. I.e. short and concise. Now here we see the other circular argument arise (not by you BTW but in general): Concept level in physics => most be concise and only based on data => must have mathematics (= wrong shown already) => most have short wording fitting everything we know perfectly so should be a theory already (=> some conclude as is done in the definition physics doesn't and should't have a concept faze.) Concept faze in physics => in part assumptions in words taken as fact to put in mathematics on missing data in part to get new data. Concise => needs data Concept faze (cf) => per definition misses data => can't be / not allowed to be more concise then data allows => demanding to only be concise in the concept faze is circular => cf = guess work => creativity => science psychology => open mindedness (+ knowledge of physics + experience in physics) = wisdom in physics => open minded physicists in concept faze and to decide funding thereof. Psychology btw states in so many words that trying to explain the concept of creativity to a totally non creative persons is like trying to explain the colour red to the permanently blind. Only via authority can that succeed.

Now trying to get politicians to see that getting the creative physicists in charge of a large part of the funding, if that happens will not have a negligible impact on science. It is unfair and incorrect to say what we discussed is only semantics. It's not. E = mc2 (in the longer version) should be defined as a law. You stated to tend to agree with that. If you see that then it has ramifications. You get a concept level at the other side as well and the need to find a system of funding that. This is reasoning politicians and taxpayers will understand. I.e. that the ones stating at the moment to know it all and are in charge of funding in fact don't. Hence the need to get the creative physicists to decide what to fund. The latter fact I've not seen you contest. Neither have you contested the fact that that would be a game changer. Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc etc. were all highly creative minds. Without a doubt minds like these are lingering within the population of physicists. Yet not in a position to dare to take risks and on larger issues and show that they can hack it as well. But they can show it at smaller issues that prove who are the creative ones and who isn't. You can bet your shiny boots that getting people of this caliber to do the guesswork it will quickly have a major impact on science. I must have been working on a reaction to this post and forgot to post it, for I can't find it anymore. Anyway, I guess you're Alex then? The one who introduced me to the concept of "word salad". On that topic I will react in my post to Phi. Further more you haven't been reading this thread properly then if you say that nobody is saying my definitions are correct or reasonable. Now you show me where I've semantically twisted anything. I guess I'm not allowed to react on your statement about Physforum. And if I am indeed not, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up. So I'll react when I know that it is allowed.

Oh I got "it" even before my OP believe it or not. Thing is, what you are in fact saying is - if I read between the lines is - that my way of defining correct scientific procedure though reasonable and even better it may be, it is unreasonable to believe that it is going to be adopted. I agree. Yet it is still worthwhile to have at least the idea spread that the current way of defining it is counter productive and that there is a better way. The reason to do that is because correct scientific procedure also means getting the creative physicists organized in a way that they become in charge of an important part of funding. If that happens it will be a game changer. To better win the battle for the need of organizing that, the need to reasonably show the definition problem exists, which you in fact in so many words agree on, is important. And, as soon as the naughty young dogs by heart become in charge of part of the cookies not only the game but also as a logical byproduct you will see the definitions change. But indeed only then. And then it isn't even that important anymore. Now the chance of actually getting the creative physicists in charge of part of the cookies is something taxpayers can indeed influence. Especially if politics gets the message that you then get more bang for the buck. The question whether it's worthwhile to try and immediately jump for TOE could then better be left for them to decide, wouldn't you agree?. I predict that they indeed will organize that jump, and be the first to actually succeed in doing so and in getting there. The reason you don't see anyone trying it at the moment is probably because the personal risk is to great to even propose that. It is way beyond the imagination of the ones in charge of funding to even contemplate that. Hence it probably isn't. And that's wrong.

The discussion is about proper scientific procedure especially in physics. The reason the thread exists is that there is a problem there. On the agenda of science stands TOE (with Hubble) etc. for physics and for instance the cure for all diseases in medicine; which might be out of reach so cure for cancer, viruses etc.. BTW finding TOE would IMO also contribute greatly in solving these issues in medicine (and probably create new problems). Hence the need to get on with it. The longer it takes the more preventable death's due to cancer etc.. I.e. we are in a hurry. Like Yeager was in his Sabre. In stead of trying to find the problem by staying at trying to find the needle in the haystack, you don't wait if there is a possibility of quick and dirty testing. You test test TEST get it wrong by trial and error and merrily figure out a way to test again. That needs funding and correct organizing thereof. That needs correct definitions in order to ascertain what to fund. Knowledge slowly rises. So you need definitions that slowly grow with the probability of being correct they are shown to have by getting the appropriate sticker bestowed and hence claim to funding. It was rigged that it answered the question on the above stated agenda. Which it did. You can fund a apple falling from the tree idea I.e. the Yo Yo test as a metaphor thereof, a cheap quick and dirty test that wouldn't get further then answering the question whether the apple falls up or down. Great possible consequences for little cost or effort. As opposed to -ONLY!- very elaborate cost effort and funding towards finding the limits of where photons are to be shown to have mass, if such limits exist and can indeed be reached. I.e. fund both. Nice to see that you now agree that the bet was one sided. Yet my bet I gave you was fair. Yours unfair for only if the games would have been called of would I win. You on the other hand started off by stating that mass-less photons are sure to be true. But I guess we agree now. Within the limits the flight manual of Yeager is granite but it becomes clay with hard bits when a test situation arises. Within the limits of current science I agree the knowledge to take photons as being mass-less is harder than granite: it's diamond. however outside the yet to be discovered limits it's not hard at all. Part of science working the production method and correctly (still) claiming by far the most funding can carry on taking this diamond knowledge, then to be seen as clay yet as hypothesis absolutely true in the search for TOE. However, that may absolutely not be brought to the point that all funding is even tried to be blocked of research taking photons to have mass as absolutely true fact in a testable hypothesis. On questions on TOE. Or absolute time, or speeds > c for that matter. I agree that it at the moment just doesn't work that way, but it should on questions of funding research. In science a law can be taken to be absolutely true within known or even unknown but always assumed limits. In other words in production you take laws of science absolutely true WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. Problem is production usually forgets the latter. For instance DSM branding nearly everybody as being mad is an example of that, being to rigidly applied as being the law on diagnostics of mental disorders in an area where you know that it a priori can't be more than rules of thumb. The worst that can happen to thus calling certain formula's a law of physics, is that later on you will have to call it an old law of physics. That BTW isn't the case for the laws of Newton. They are very much still current within their limits. A law for instance containing time deletion might become an old law when a new law comes along maybe with not only a broader field of applicability and more precise predictions within the same field, but also with a much simpler form of mathematics altogether. Getting the same or better results thus on a broader field as well. But then still the old law will be correct within its limits, yet outdated because to complex. Because you don't want to run into the situation of having to change the law all the time, you need broad acceptance that it indeed will stand the test of time, within its (BTW broad and deep enough to warrant the hefty title) limits. A theory then is something yet to become a law (at least to then contain them). Yet a theory should already be consistent with all observations of science and address all problems and in principle have practically testable hypothesis. The latter of course then warrants the most funding. Yet you will still have to address the probabilities of conflicting theories. You will still have use of the word in theory as depicting the opposite of in practice. I see no problems with that context. Now the problem is that physicists that are highly conscientious, work hard and accurately and have great knowledge of the present status quo, and write thick scientific books with a lot of footnotes and being most cited, are usually also the ones that are good at networking and communicating with the usually conscientious people in government in charge of funding. These physicists become the ones that have to inherently guess what to best fund. Yet not being Natures best guessers. The creative physicists that aren't that interested in networking and fundraising lose out. Yet they understand and have the talent in the art of guessing, which idea,s concepts and theories should receive funding. Now I propose to get that better organized. I'm convinced if you let the creative physicists decide what to fund, the science of physics will leap ahead by trial and a lot of error as well. Then it also will reside that people like Higgs are sick to the bone in fear of showing their idea, and might even chose not to. For bullies like Steven Hawking calling him an idiot or what was it. Even if Higgs is to be proven wrong, that will be with hindsight. If the creative get funding, these problems will reside more. And produce better idea's to develop and test, test TEST. That is science!

Science should be aiming at finding the truth on everything in order to put it into laws that per definition should be as concise as possible. We are in fact saying the same thing, yet I define it differently with a reason. I'll go into this further in my reaction to Swansont. My definition of a theory is different from yours (as is my definition of a Law.) Both can be used side by side depending on the context. If you are however talking research and organizing the funding thereof you must use the way I propose because the one physics currently uses is only correct on production questions. And thus incorrect on research questions because it slows that process down to much. Research is about tacking risks. I'll go into this further in my reaction to Swansont.

Yes, it's wrong to state things that are outside the issue on my stipulative definition of a law as if they can decide this undecided issue. In my stipulative definition every most succinct (mathematical ) formulation it holds that is part of that proven theory from which you can derive the entire theory. Which they are is your problem as a physicist. Not mine as a taxpayer. So within (maybe disputed) limits I don't contest the correctness of QM, SR, GR or FT. Within those limits you can take a scientifically valid position based on QM to be consistent with the laws of Nature. Thus you can state that anyone who violates those laws within set limits to be in violation of current science. On a question on TOE however you are immediately outside set limits in which QM, SR, GR or FT can be held as (containing) the appropriate laws. Like the flight manual of Yeager in his Sabre, they become more or less vague and subject to being rewritten. If you do that differently you crash, in a test-flight as in physics in getting the question resolved in a timely fashion. It was rigged in such a way that it was the simplest way to prove my point. The point not being meaningless. Whether or not the theory as you call it or conforming to the law of Nature as I would call it, is weak as you call it, or extremely strong yet of a very limited scope, as I would call it, is thus immaterial. You are unnecessarily complicating a simple issue. In science you must try to simplify things. Apart from that the very specific and precise prediction is not contested by me - within limits - yet you persist to state that it is - limitless - as being correct when talking on a question of TOE. On that question it has yet to prove itself. Which is as I put forward extremely improbable because it is believing in a blatant contradiction. That you observe these contradictions doesn't prove that magic exists. It shows that you physicists haven't figured out what illusion Mother Nature is pulling off. No, but I will wager that it is far more probable that apples fall down out of trees than the probability that photons are actually mass-less and that it will ultimately be proven that the falling apples are true and the mass-less photons are untrue. If physics finally gets out of its whopping confirmation bias and starts to try and disprove GR, QM, SR and FT as physics is supposed to do in the context of the search for TOE, we might even get to a TOE within a short time. Your feeling is wrong then. I want to falsify everything and you want me to - confirm! - to you that GR, SR, QM and FT are absolutely or nearly so correct in every limitless context. BTW that might be. The probability that that is so I estimate at less than 1 in a trillion to the trillionth. Why? Because they have contradictions. It's even a priori clear it simply can't all be absolutely or even nearly so correct. Quite the opposite is true. We've known that for a very long time even since the conception of GR etc.. And the fun thing is you again ignore even the necessity of doing the hypothetical Yo Yo test I gave, even if my given criteria - which you haven't opposed - have been met. You don't even want to contemplate to falsify anything other than well researched fringe issues. Too slow.

Please read the thread before posting: #20 Quote of what I stated and asked Swansont: "..... That is deterministic. Such as: "photons are mass-less" is a deterministic statement. Black and white. How sure are you of the fact that photons are mass-less? As sure as that the apple will fall out of the tree downwards? Less sure?" Yes, and I have read Wikipedia on it. Yet it as stated doesn't address the problem of funding correctly. So I use a stipulative definition. Do you know what that means? Okay, do I state anything different to that definition? (I.e. you don't only put mathematics into mathematics. Observations and assumptions go into the mathematics as garbage or non garbage. You all blatantly deny this.) This thread is not about string theory. That string theory physicists don't hope to prove their theory by a substantial body of evidence is new to me.

You are taking it outside the argument on the definition of a law. Given proof of string theory (whether that is ever going to happen or not is thus irrelevant, it's a given) will that then provide a new law? I say yes, you say no. You're wrong then. Me being obsessed with anything is irrelevant. That depends on the applied standard of proof. But it was stated as a conviction to counter your statement that no new law has come along in a hundred years. If you don't follow correct procedure, which hasn't been done then that remark of yours doesn't prove anything either, on the same standard of proof. Come to think of it your remark was irrelevant to the issue. If a theory is proven you get a law. Period. That was the issue. Pure logic. The more relevant data the clearer in nearly all cases the picture (i.e. the probandum) becomes. If it doesn't then there is probably something wrong, and you best check everything including thus prior assumptions. I posed the problem. You changed the problem. It is not what you meant that counts when reacting to my posed problem. You dodge the issue otherwise. In science or even physics you don't try to complicate an issue but try and simplify it. Does the apple fall down or up doesn't need any adding of gravity or what not to be taken into consideration. It falls down. Period. The only correct answer - even in science - and one with an extremely high probability of being correct. The issue is not why it falls down but that it does so and the probability of that in relation to the probability of your mass-less photon. Both set in their respective correct framework of assumptions.The latter including problems relating to a TOE. This is again a fallacy of yours. You simply dodge the issue. The probability of an apple falling down in stead of up is by far greater than the probability of a mass-less particle existing as opposed to it having mass. Probabilities are probabilities and can thus be compared. What this demonstrates is that truths are only valid within an assumed framework of assumptions. You act as if you don't understand this. That you can correctly take a photon to be absolutely mass-less in a great many cases doesn't prove it is correct to assume it can always be taken as such or be taken as such when addressing a problem concerning TOE. In that larger context it is extremely improbable that it is true. It is the same as one can take the world to be flat when making a paper city map also being correct even though the world is a sphere. What that again shows is that you have to check your assumptions prior to using the mathematics on any topic concerning TOE. Period.

If string theory is proven to be correct for instance I don't see why - even by the way of defining used by physicists - the core formula from which the rest can be derived doesn't become a law of physics. And to further compound my point had you physicists followed correct scientific procedure, which BTW starts off with getting your definitions in order, we would probably of had a TOE 50 years ago instead of the aptly put situation by you that new laws haven't been found. Actually we have far more relevant data in these hundred years but instead of it becoming more clear it becomes more weird and wacky. Looking at that fact as a general basic rule dictates that it is time to check the prior assumptions again. Because if the assumptions were correct you would expect as a general rule everything to become less weird and wacky the more data we get. I.e. correct scientific procedure dictates you break with your taboo in physics and start to look at the more philosophic side by taking in the total picture. As a practical means to find out where to start looking. Philosophically speaking I assume Mother Nature not to do magic but suspect her of being an illusionist. A good illusionist makes use of our inert ability to delude ourselves. I.e. we work out a confirmation bias to a certain extent. Some more than others. (This delusion is important for us in order to survive BTW.I.e it isn't all bad. But is is bad in research.) There are many nice psychological tests that prove this. An illusionist makes use of this to the extent that you might even start to believe in magic. This until the trick is explained to you. Usually very simple and proof of your confirmation bias at work that you first fell for it. Indeed here's the thing: Q.E.D. of a fallacy, providing at an absurdly high level confirmation that you by this post have provided strong evidence of having a confirmation bias. I'm not saying that you have, but that you have provided further evidence of this. What you are saying is "absolutely" true, indeed with the proviso: "all things being equal". They're not, because I didn't state that to be so neither implicitly or otherwise. You are now implying that I wanted you to compare an apple at quantum level with something else knowing full-well I didn't say that and even implied the opposite. "Apple" at quantum level is meaningless. So you must take my "apple" within the an implied context where it has meaning: Probabilistically speaking I would say my statement to be true with an estimated odds of more than a trillion to one. I don't have to be more succinct on with what acceleration or mathematics of formula the thing only has to fall down. Now being Dutch I could state that the apple falls in the direction I'm pointing and point upwards. And be telling the truth for apples from our anti-pods in New Zealand (I guess they have apple trees there.) But that would be outside the implicit boundaries of the statement and still prove the point of them falling down. Now there is a chance that a small black hole comes whizzing past as a galloping unicorn, pulling first the apple and then the tree up as well. Or that God decides to have had enough and decides that hence forth apples fall upwards. Hence my estimate. Now if I have to give an estimate on your mass-less photon, well: we recognize a photon as a thing to be bestowed the sticker "photon" when it whizzes by at c. Seeing an energy packet and a meter long wave. But what it exactly is we don't know within this framework because it does silly incomprehensible stuff such as in the double slit experiment. That it seems mass-less doesn't prove it's mass-less. It might be an illusion. To then say it is mass less with all the philosophical implications that has: something coming from nothing et-cetera, as opposed to assuming a measurement problem assuming it has mass, is at a concept level, where you in correct scientific procedure are at, to be deemed a probability of less than that there is a God. Believing in God is no contradiction with what we observe, believing in something from nothing is. Believing in God a probability of less than 1 in a trillion of being correct believing in a mass less photon is less than 1 in a trillion to the trillionth. Q.E.D. : your position is busted at any standard of proof. Now why did you knowingly place my apple out of the implicit though clear context? I.e. strong evidence for a confirmation bias. Of which I'm BTW not convinced you suffer, so it doesn't prove it for me at any standard of proof. Wouldn't it be better to organize a site (maybe this one) to receive public funding to do Crank Busting? I.e. put the science and mathematics towards crank idea's that meet up to the standards I posed? Edit: One thing is shore: if we get to a TOE the idea that does that is probably to be deemed crank by current science. BTW Bignose stated that he's only very interested in predictions. Now that isn't quite correct because I could predict the coming of the Messiah. What you need is falsifiable tests: i.e. provide practically testable predictions. (You know: Popper) Now if someone where to have an idea that fulfills my criteria (that are BTW the correct scientific procedural criteria) and states in that way to be able to build a universe with one particle and have a practical test with a Yo Yo. If you subsequently ignore this Yo Yo test, would that be further evidence of a confirmation bias? Yes it would. Q.E.D.

No, so? Physicists like Rutherford I'm aware. That is deterministic. Such as: "photons are mass-less" is a deterministic statement. Black and white. How sure are you of the fact that photons are mass-less? As sure as that the apple will fall out of the tree downwards? Less sure? I don't want that either. I meant it more in as a figure of speech for the communication between physicists and the representatives of us the tax payers. Who these representatives should be?: well the (most) open minded physicists. That is indeed the crux. You order the "team" of physicists in the more open-minded and the less so in order to decide (for a large part) what to fund and what not.

Okay, I'll do a better job on that in the future. I thought it was okay taking his entire quote, but indeed it then is a bit long. I don't see how I can correct that now because the post can't be edited. Well how can it be wrong to propose a new stipulative way to better define these words in the context of funding and legal implications BTW? I.e. in the way I propose it you can say I don't agree with string theory. I don't want it to be funded. And when string theory is proven correct the most defining part of the theory that has as such been proven becomes a law of physics. So if you sell someone an expensive machine based on a not yet proven string theory you are liable. That physicists have another way of defining it within the context of physics for other purposes be my guest. (That's the nice thing about word salad.) Yet as a tax payer I'd like them to get their definitions in order so that we can discus what they are on about in a way that is check-able as an accountable way of using taxpayers money. In this way you further correct scientific procedure via correct funding of it. It is not a deterministic black and white story physicists like to sell, but a slowly rising probability of correctness and thus fund-ability.

Well, the topic on correct scientific procedure in just over 6000 words is seeing the complexity of the topic not long by any standard. What I stated on mathematics and physics is basic teaching of any science class on proper use of mathematics and tests in physics. Usually you don't have to provide footnotes on standard issues thought in science class. Anything in that respect that you say I was taught incorrectly? Then I will find the source for you. The psychology is also the communis opinio as indeed also stated as such by the English Wikipedia (with further footnotes). There must be psychologists roaming this site that could contest this. And the story of Yeager, well it is used as an illustration and not proof as such. I could have also introduced it as a thought experiment. As I stated can't find the book Right Stuff by Chuck Yeager. Do you want me to? The dissimilar nature would only be a point if any point fails to underpin the central arguments.Please point out where you think that is the case. A disparate nature is an inherent problem on any truly complex problem. Which this is.

Sorry, it was me unwittingly starting a double post yesterday. Must have been one of those John Cleese moments in which the computer doesn't understand what I want (because I probably double clicked somewhere, being a long post taking somewhat more time than I expected.) One thread was thus correctly closed by the moderator. Hope you find the time to read and react to the initial post.