A bunch of ranting - split from Challenging Science - split from The Selfish Gene Theory

[Reg Prescott]

I suggest you stop making one ridiculous claim after another, and then balk at putting your money where your mouth is when challenged.

As for, "Again scientific theories are never meant to find any supposed truth or reality" -- you

Quote

All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn")

Evidently, Steven Weinberg -- and countless others besides -- does not share your opinion. Haven't we been through this in another place?

 

In the following link to Richard Dawkins' quotes, the word "truth" appears 17 times. Apparently he does not share your opinion either. 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

E.g.

• Gravity is not a version of the truth. It is the truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a tenth-floor window.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

Just now, Reg Prescott said:

I suggest you stop making one ridiculous claim after another, and then balk at putting your money where your mouth is when challenged.

As for, "Again scientific theories are never meant to find any supposed truth or reality" -- you
 

Even more to the point, I suggest you stop posting such foolish posts making unreal pretentious challenges that are never going to eventuate.

Quote

Evidently, Steven Weinberg -- and countless others besides -- does not share your opinion. Haven't we been through this in another place?

I don't know what Stephen said, and I am certainly not going to take your word on that. Probably as many god botherers do, taking some statement totally out of context. But hey, you can supply a link can't you?

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I don't know what Stephen said, and I am certainly not going to take your word on that. Probably as many god botherers do, taking some statement totally out of context. But hey, you can supply a link can't you?

The source is specified inside the quote. Look again, chum.

[beecee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

In July 2017, The Selfish Gene was listed as the most influential science book of all time in a poll to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Royal Society science book prize.

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

The source is specified inside the quote. Look again, chum.

You need to do better then that chum.  

 

[Reg Prescott]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

You need to do better then that chum.  

Not quite sure how I could do better than than I did. What do you want: a page number too? Line number?

Or should I haul Prof Weinberg over here to verify what he said?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

E.g.

• Gravity is not a version of the truth. It is the truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a tenth-floor window.

So? Being obtuse again? We know what gravity does, but do we know the actual reason, the truth, the reality you are pretending to hide behind. Let me attempt to educate you again. We have Newtonian and GR.....one more accurate then the other, or if you like one less wrong then the other, or if you prefer, one more correct then the other, or possibly, one closer to the truth then the other...take your pick reggy old chum!

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

It is quite an old book...  I read his (most recent?) book The God Delusion a year or two ago, shortly after changing my status from Christian to atheist.  It quotes his previous books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker several times. I enjoyed it and it seemed to flow pretty easily and laid out the 'god is a myth' argument pretty well - EVERY rebuttal I have seen of his books or of quotes from it have been total misunderstandings about what was written or of the science around it....  maybe innocently, but I fail to see how some can take what the man writes and skew it so badly.

The God Delusion  -  get that one. So far nothing in it has been adequately challenged by anyone of any understanding.

 

Thanks for that. I often compare Dawkins and Sagan...While I appreciate both, I see Dawkins a bit abrasive then the docile calm manners of Sagan whose books I have many of. Thanks again.

9 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

You're an Ozzie, right?

Forget Dawkins and buy David Stove's "Darwinian Fairy Tales" instead.

Now that bloke is smart! Funny too.

No I'm an Aussie and I certainly prefer working scientists over and above the questionable antics and comments of a Philosopher.,,Aussie or not.

[Reg Prescott]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Once again, all this shows is your apparent ignorance and then misinterpretation of science and history. Again the apparent abnormal orbit of Uranus according to Newtonian mechanics predicted another planet further out. Bingo! That planet was found and named Neptune. In fact Neptune was mathematically pin pointed by Newtonian mechanics before it was observed. 

No. Newtonian mechanics made no such prediction. If you disagree, show us how this "prediction" is derived from the theory -- in logical form.

What we can say is: Given Uranus's misbehavior, the existence of an unknown body would account for the data.

This is what would be described as a case of abduction (or hypothesis formation); not a case of a prediction being derived from a theory.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

No. Newtonian mechanics made no such prediction. If you disagree, show us how this "prediction" is derived from the theory -- in logical form.

What we can say is: Given Uranus's misbehavior, the existence of an unknown body would account for the data.

This is what would be described as a case of abduction (or hypothesis formation); not a case of a prediction being derived from a theory.

You are in total denial. Uranus'anomaly was predicted to be due to another planet, which using Newtonian mechanics was mathematically pin pointed before it was observed. As Newtonian predicted! If on the other hand, no planet was found to exist in that spot, doubt would have been thrown on the accuracy of Newtonian.

Actually Newtonian's limited accuracy was  illustrated by the precession in the orbit of Mercury, which was explained by GR in 1919. 

[Reg Prescott]

I asked you to show us your derivation. You did not. 

Here's an example of a deductive derivation:

Premise 1 : All ravens are black

Premise 2 :There is a raven inside the box

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: The raven inside the box is black

 

And an inductive derivation:

Premise 1 : Most ravens are black

Premise 2 :There is a raven inside the box

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: It is likely that the raven inside the box is black

 

Now show us how you derive -- either deductively or inductively -- the existence of Neptune from Newtonian mechanics.

[beecee]

The Discovery of Neptune | How Le Verrier used Newtonian Mechanics to predict another planet?

The Discovery of Neptune in 1846 is regarded as one of the most legendary moments in the consolidation of classical mechanics. Discovering a distant world in the darkness of space by the use of mathematical reasoning became one of the late triumphs of the Enlightenment and Newton's vision.

9 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now show us how you derive -- either deductively or inductively -- the existence of Neptune from Newtonian mechanics.

Sorry I'm not a mathematician. The previous video should explain. But let me continue with my mainstream education of you....Newtonian mechanics besides being instrumental and responsible for the discovery of Neptune, is also used in near all space endeavours by NASA and other agencies...particularly the Voyager 1 and 2 rendezvous with 2 and 4 planets respectively. 

34 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

. If you disagree, show us how this "prediction" is derived from the theory -- in logical form.

I find it rather ironic that you with your continued misinterpretations, denials and obtuseness, should question me about logic. The irony meter has blown up! 

Edited October 10, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

The Discovery of Neptune | How Le Verrier used Newtonian Mechanics to predict another planet?

The Discovery of Neptune in 1846 is regarded as one of the most legendary moments in the consolidation of classical mechanics. Discovering a distant world in the darkness of space by the use of mathematical reasoning became one of the late triumphs of the Enlightenment and Newton's vision.Sorry I'm not a mathematician. 

You don't need to be a mathematician. The simple fact is that what you call a "prediction"  -- cannot be derived from Newtonian theory.

If you know your history, you'll be aware that Mercury, like Uranus, was misbehaving too. Similarly, an unknown planet was hypothesized (not derived from theory) to account for the anomalous data. They even gave it a name - "Vulcan". It was never found.

In neither case did Newtonian theory make these predictions. You might say Le Verrier made the prediction, if you like. It was certainly not a prediction derived from theory. It was a hypothesis which was suggested -- that if true -- would account for the data.

An indefinite number of hypotheses could have accounted for the very same data (the existence of unknown forces acting on Uranus, etc). None of them were, or would have been, predictions of the theory.

(I couldn't remove that dang video from my post. Sorry!)

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

An indefinite number of hypotheses could have accounted for the very same data (the existence of unknown forces acting on Uranus, etc). None of them were, or would have been, predictions of the theory.

Newtonian mechanics accounted for the discrepency in the orbit of Uranus and history validates that claim. Not sure what maths from what universe you are pretending to use, but as others have more then once noted, you appear in total denial, are obtuse and constantly misinterpret what offends your own view.

The precession in the orbit of Mercury was too precise for Newtonian to totally account for...GR did the job.

The claim is supported by the evidence.

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Newtonian mechanics accounted for the discrepency in the orbit of Uranus and history validates that claim. Not sure what maths from what universe you are pretending to use, but as others have more then once noted, you appear in total denial, are obtuse and constantly misinterpret what offends your own view.

No. Neptune accounted for the discrepancy in the orbit of Uranus.

And as we've seen, the existence of Neptune is not something that can be derived from Newtonian theory.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

If there is no evidence that existing science based understandings could be wrong there is not a lot to question. When such evidence arises it tends to get addressed - and such evidence does get noticed when it arises; scientific careers can be made out of it. Is the evidence valid and significant enough to overturn existing understandings? How do you know? When scientific understandings are widely applied the opportunities to notice things that don't fit are increased, not decreased; it isn't a matter of constant, deliberate searching for things that don't fit - they are an inevitable outcome of using theories that are wrong.

As with my response to swansont (bottom of previous page), if what you say here is true, then Phi's claim that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time" is false.

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

No. Neptune accounted for the discrepancy in the orbit of Uranus.

And as we've seen, the existence of Neptune is not something that can be derived from Newtonian theory.

Rubbish and again total misinterpretation and denial once again. If Newtonian had not have accounted for Neptunes position, we would not have used its mathematics to calculate it, and I dare say, lengthy and complicated space endeavours such as Voyagers 1 and 2 would have had problems. Neptune was predicted by Newtonian mathematics before it was even observed.  

Edited October 10, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Rubbish and again total misinterpretation and denial once again. If Newtonian had not have accounted for Neptunes position, we would not have used its mathematics to calculate it, and I dare say, lengthy and complicated space endeavours such as Voyagers 1 and 2 would have had problems. Neptune was predicted by Newtonian mathematics before it was even observed.  

Then again, I must implore: show me your derivation.

If you're not up to the task, find someone who can.

You'll be wasting your time, though. The existence of Neptune was compatible with Newtonian theory; it was not a prediction derived from theory.

(The existence of Donald Duck is also perfectly compatible with Newton's theory, though as with Neptune, it cannot be derived from the theory.)

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Neptune_and_Pluto.html

Mathematical discovery of planets

The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto. These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted locations

2 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Then again, I must implore: show me your derivation.

If you're not up to the task, find someone who can.

Stop being dramatic, it doesn't work with me. You have the evidence as well as a couple of references...your silly continued attempts at denial, are just that.

[Reg Prescott]

One of the most sophisticated writers on science I've had the pleasure to discover in recent years is John Ziman (according to the cover jacket: "professor of theoretical physics, member of the Royal Society, etc., etc).

On the topic of dogmatism (see my opening post), I quote from Prof Ziman's "Real Science", page 311:

"The distinction [between science and religion] is surely valid, but very far from absolute. As we have seen, science rarely lives up to its ideals. Scientific paradigms often become socially entrenched, and are presented as if entirely beyond question. The notion that science is never dogmatic is one of its dogmas!"

And...

"At the same time, not all religious systems are hostile to originality and scepticism. Hinduism and Buddhism are continually open to new wisdom gained by personal enlightenment. Even a 'revealed' religion such as Judeo-Christianity or Islam, where any line of argument can be closed off by reference to a text provided by an omnipotent deity, can never be systematically fundamentalist. Its teachings are reshaped by Prophets and Saints. Its founder texts become the focus of creative heresy, critical debate and doctrinal re-interpretation. For example, vigorous scholastic controversy within medieval Christendom created a fertile intellectual seedbed for new belief systems, such as Reformation theology, Renaissance humanism and scientific naturalism. The notion that 'religion' is always dogmatic is also a scientific dogma!"

[Strange]

p.s. I have “Reg” on ignore (Sturgeon’s law) so I only see his idiocy when others quote him. This is still a dangerous level of exposure!

[Strange]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

That is why so much else would come crashing down if relativity was disproved.

Uh. Yeah. That was kind of the point.

 

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

p.s. I have “Reg” on ignore (Sturgeon’s law) so I only see his idiocy when others quote him. This is still a dangerous level of exposure!

Was that Nicola?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

No it was recognised from the outset that SR does not include gravity.

Indeed. It is important to distinguish incomplete/limited (every scientific theory) from wrong (I can only think of a couple of examples in the history of science - interestingly, only one of which was paradigm changing).

Just now, studiot said:

Was that Nicola?

Theodore!

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

p.s. I have “Reg” on ignore (Sturgeon’s law) so I only see his idiocy when others quote him. This is still a dangerous level of exposure!

But Reg is always right - even when he's wrong.

 

 

Which is my way of noting that he often states plausible, even sensible lines many of which I can agree with.

But then he uses them to argue ex extremum.

He seems to either think he is or wishes to be the only person with anything worthwhile to say on a given subject.
Several times I have picked out a particular line of his to agree with and give hime credit for.

I have never noticed a reciprocal action.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

p.s. I have “Reg” on ignore (Sturgeon’s law) so I only see his idiocy when others quote him. This is still a dangerous level of exposure!

I can understand your sentiments, but I'm not sure turning a blind eye even towards such idiocy is the way to go. My thoughts are he appears to be getting more desperate as he proceeds with his nonsense and in time, like his other threads it will probably be shut down. With the possibility of young students lurking on the forum, I believe his nonsense should be refuted at every turn.

Wow!  It appears someone is having some problem with my posts and giving me "reds" even a couple of reputable links! Not sure what he/she is trying to prove....perhaps another god botherer has been offended! 

 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes, absolutely, but you entirely miss the point.

And that Reg whether it offends you or not, has been the whole history of your posting on this forum so far

anyway, time for my beauty sleep.

[Rob McEachern]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

If you actually measure something else, either by accident, or by failure to take account of some intervening factor or for some other reason, then your experiment offers little or nothing about the validity of the guess.

On Challenging Science, particularly Physics, You have my sympathy Reg.

Most living, theoretical physicists have yet to recognize (even though the long-dead masters, like Einstein and Schrodinger, repeatedly warned them about it) that they have fallen victim to the very problem noted in studiot's quote. Fools rush in, where wiser men have feared to tread. When you attempt to "measure something else", that your theory suggests exists, but that does not in fact actually exist in nature, then your theory "offers little" (though a little may nevertheless be a lot better than nothing). As I have pointed out in other threads on this site (to the dismay of the usual suspects), the uncertainty principle, the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem and all related matters are based on the supposed "self-evidently true" assumption, that after you have made a first measurement (as of position, or spin in one direction), then the ability to "measure something else" (like momentum, or spin in a different direction) should always be possible. But it is not always possible. In fact, it is impossible by definition, whenever the thing the physicists are attempting to measure, happens to manifest only a single bit of information. In that peculiar event, there is nothing "else" present, that can ever be reliably measured, not even in principle. That is what is meant by the term "bit of information" in Shannon's Information Theory. In this peculiar case, all measurements, after the first, must either reproduce the first, or be nothing more than an erroneous measurement of the first - by definition. Thus we now have quantum vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, qbits, spooky action at a distance, etc. etc. ... all to account for those errors as being "something else", other that what they actually appear to be, producing weird correlations, that are consistently misinterpreted on the basis of the false assumption; namely that they "measure something else", something other than the ultimate “elementary particle” in reductionism, the least-complex possible entity,  an entity manifesting the least-possible number of bits of information - a single bit - offering no possibility whatsoever of any uncorrelated, second measurement.

Quantum theory is infested with such bad interpretations - assumptions about "measure something else", like blaming particles/waves/wavefunctions passing though a pair of slits for a supposed interference pattern, rather that recognizing that the pattern is merely the Fourier transform of the slit's geometry (more specifically, its power spectrum), and has little (but not nothing) to do with anything, particle or wave, passing through the slits. It's rather like blaming the light from the sun, for the visible pattern of your mother's face - How did the sun know what my mother's face looks like?!! Surely it must, for how else could I ever observe the pattern of my mother's face, if the sun was not emitting light that already knows/contains that pattern, before it ever struck her face?!!! But as Dogbert-the-physicist might say, "My theory is totally, totally different! My light, shining through the slits, really does know everyone's face, even before they were born! It all has to do with BlockTime! It has nothing to do with faces or slits modulating their information content, onto a carrier, that is, by itself, almost entirely devoid of any information!"

Again, you have my sympathy, Reg.

But you can take some solace from Stephen Hawking's quotes (The Universe in a Nutshell) "There is no more experimental evidence for some of the theories described in this book than there is for astrology..." and "Einstein thought that this (the EPR paradox) proved that quantum theory was ridiculous: the other particle might be at the other side of the galaxy by now, yet one would instantaneously know which way it was spinning. However, most other scientists agree that it was Einstein who was confused."

And therein lies the difference between the wise men of old, that urged caution about such interpretations (a message not lost on their students, who subsequently urged their own students to “Shut up and Calculate!”), and all the later-day fools (Hawking's "most other scientists" AKA physicists) that rushed in, and ignorantly assumed that they, unlike their elders, could not possibly be confused by experiments that might "measure something else", other than what their new dogma proclaimed that they must have succeeded in measuring.

So, as you have attempted to point-out, sometimes a difference between theoretical predictions of planetary motions and observations, can be correctly attributed to the prevailing wisdom/dogma of the day, such as an undiscovered planet. But other times, it "measures something else", like a previously unguessed, relativistic effect. But nowadays, as Hawking's quote indicates, more and more theoretical physicists have come to actually believe that the "beauty of math" alone justifies all their beliefs, in their favorite conclusions, deduced from their favorite "self evident" assumptions, and experimental evidence is neither necessary nor desired, to sustain their beliefs, anymore than for those believing in the "beauty of god."  Because, “Hey, my conclusion really does follow from my premise! So it must be valid!” The possibility that the math just might, with absolute perfection "describe something else", a different premise, other than what the prevailing wisdom/dogma has supposed (the possibility suggested by the older generation of acclaimed physicists, like Einstein), has been summarily dismissed, as an "unnecessary hypothesis", by the lesser-lights in today's constellation of "best-selling" physicists. Laplace would roll over in his grave. And Santayana did say that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And Bacon would say "I told you so - 400 years ago - premises can only be justified via inductive reasoning based on actual observations, not deductive logic, however clever."  Perhaps, since few physicists seem to (correctly) remember the past, I should note that Bacon decried Aristotle's over-reliance on deductive reasoning, for delaying progress in science, for 2000 years, since he thereby convinced philosophers to value deductive logic (inevitably based on unverified premises) above any actual observations of the real world, that might actually reveal that some premises probably (but not certainly) ought to be preferred over others. And now, for the past half-century, history repeats itself, and most present-day physicists see nothing at all of value in what the old philosophers had to say about such things, or even what older physicists of Einstein's caliber had to say - they were all just "confused", to use Hawking's term.

As the old saying goes, the race does not always go to the swift and the strong, but that is the way to bet. I’m betting on Einstein’s conception of the universe, not Brian Green’s, or Stephen Hawking’s, however elegant they may be. Dubious premises result in dubious conclusions, regardless of their beauty.