hijack from How do we decide who to trust when we aren't experts?

[Charles 3781]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You act like this is a bad thing. The mind just boggles that you’d rather someone be consistently wrong instead of willing to change their mind as new information becomes available 

I realize also this is just another off topic point

Look,  iNow, and sorry if this is off topic, because in following this thread, I've lost track of what it was,  but would you accept this point:

In Science - Scientists frequently radically change their opinions.  Whereas in Mathematics,  there has been no fundamental change of opinion since the invention of arithmetic and algebra?

[Charles 3781]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. I think it's all about degrees of belief. You can believe something because you have faith in it (gut feeling based on no evidence), or you can hope it's true (wishful thinking), or you can dig down and do some deep research until you finally have an explanation you can trust. An authority should possess the kind of deep knowledge required to build that trust.

Mathematicians are good authorities because they can prove their theorems.  As they have been able to from Classical Euclidean times, to the present.

But that's not the same with modern physics.  It seems to be losing touch with objective truth, and relying on "Authority figures" such as the hallowed Stephen Hawking.  I don't trust him,  I want to know whether his theorems can be proved. 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Charles 3781
minor syntax error corrected

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

But that's not the same with modern physics.  It seems to be losing touch with objective truth, and relying on "Authority figures" such as the hallowed Stephen Hawking. 

Physics was NEVER interested in objective truth. Physics is interested in describing the way the universe behaves, and seeing if it concurs with our best current explanations (or the other way around). 

I find it frustrating that you show both a contempt for scientists AND abundant misunderstandings regarding science. One seems to fuel the other, and if you'd let them cancel each other out, the remainder might be interesting and informative.

[Charles 3781]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Physics was NEVER interested in objective truth. Physics is interested in describing the way the universe behaves, using our best current explanations. 

I find it frustrating that you show both a contempt for scientists AND abundant misunderstandings regarding science. One seems to fuel the other, and if you'd let them cancel each other out, the remainder might be interesting and informative.

 When you say Physics was NEVER interested in objective truth, I think you do a disservice to scientists.

If you'd said:  "Ancient Physics - such as Ancient Astronomy,  couldn't be interested  in objective truth",  you'd have a valid point.

Ancient Astronomers  could only be concerned  with observing the movements of stars and planets.  And by drawing up mathematical tables of these movements,  the astronomers were able to successfully predict future phenomena, such as conjunctions and eclipses.   The astronomers called this " Saving the Phenomena".

Later on, when telescopes had been invented, astronomers were able to see more.

Can't you understand this?

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

The only people you should really trust are mathematicians. 

You are probably correct. I'll make sure to ask for a mathematician to conduct any surgery I may require in the future. He is sure to be more trustworthy than some over-qualified surgeon.

[Phi for All]

48 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Can't you understand this?

It's irrelevant to my point. Science relies on theory, not proof, and not truth. Theory changes as our knowledge changes, and always presents us with our current best explanations. When people think they've found truth, they stop looking, and that's not science.

Phlogiston wasn't truth, was it? Aren't you glad it was just a theory that was overturned? Can't you understand this?

[Charles 3781]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's irrelevant to my point. Science relies on theory, not proof, and not truth. Theory changes as our knowledge changes, and always presents us with our current best explanations. When people think they've found truth, they stop looking, and that's not science.

Phlogiston wasn't truth, was it? Aren't you glad it was just a theory that was overturned? Can't you understand this?

Actually, you know, "Phlogiston" was perhaps an idea before its time.  It was supposed to be an element with "negative weight".  When a combusting substance such as wood  burned,  it exhumed  its negative Phlogiston content, and thereby acquired positive weight.  

Which accounted for why burned ashes weighed more than the original wood.  Sounds neat?  Quite as plausible as our modern idea that Universe is expanding by intergalalactic  negative "Phlogistonic "force, don't you think.

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

I don't trust him,  I want to know whether his theorems can be proved. 

Almost all of the work he did is of a highly mathematical nature, and much of it (e.g. singularity theorems) can be rigorously proven. I have not read all of his papers, but those parts of his work that I have seen are of exceptional scientific value - so his reputation as an ‘authority figure’ is well deserved, IMHO.

[swansont]

19 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Look,  iNow, and sorry if this is off topic, because in following this thread, I've lost track of what it was,  but would you accept this point:

In Science - Scientists frequently radically change their opinions.

No evidence presented to back this up.

 

Quote

  Whereas in Mathematics,  there has been no fundamental change of opinion since the invention of arithmetic and algebra?

What’s the sum of the angles in a triangle? Do parallel lines ever meet?

Did the answers to these change when non-Euclidean geometry was developed?

16 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Actually, you know, "Phlogiston" was perhaps an idea before its time.  It was supposed to be an element with "negative weight".  When a combusting substance such as wood  burned,  it exhumed  its negative Phlogiston content, and thereby acquired positive weight.  

Which accounted for why burned ashes weighed more than the original wood.  Sounds neat?  Quite as plausible as our modern idea that Universe is expanding by intergalalactic  negative "Phlogistonic "force, don't you think.

That’s not an accurate portrayal of the relevant physics of expansion, but by all means, parade your ignorance like it’s a virtue.

[michel123456]

On 10/15/2020 at 2:08 AM, Charles 3781 said:

Which accounted for why burned ashes weighed more than the original wood.

Where did you get that idea?

[joigus]

On 10/14/2020 at 10:54 PM, Charles 3781 said:

I want to know whether his theorems can be proved. 

Theorems are proven mathematical results.

Physics' so-called theorems are rigorous results: Coleman-Mandula, Penrose-Hawking, Köchen-Specker, Bell, Ehrenfest...

What do they mean? How relevant are they? are different questions.

These theorems are later examined by mathematicians, and cast in more and more rigorous and/or alternative formulations.

You can doubt the premises. The authors themselves make no claim about their premises. They claim: If these premises are true, then this result follows.

On 10/14/2020 at 10:54 PM, Charles 3781 said:

I don't trust him,

I don't trust you, because you don't accept a mathematically proven result. So I know you're wrong.

Also, you miss this very important sociological point: Physics, in its human dimension, is driven by fierce competition. Rivals somewhere are only too willing to prove you wrong, no matter who you are.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Where did you get that idea?

IIRC it was burning/oxidation in metals, not the burning of wood, where mass increase was observed. Right concept, wrong target.

Specifically I think it was a detailed analysis of magnesium.

(pause)

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

“Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Some^[who?] phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on Archimedes' principle, the densities of magnesium and its combustion product showed that just being lighter than air could not account for the increase in mass”

[dimreepr]

On 10/14/2020 at 9:54 PM, Charles 3781 said:

I don't trust him,  I want to know whether his theorems can be proved. 

Well it's either him, a highly regarded physicist (admired by many a teacher), or a random guy on the tinternet, a highly liked idiot (admired by many a child): I know who I'd trust, but sure, ask us if he or random guy got the math's right...

Edited October 20, 2020 by dimreepr

[Charles 3781]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

IIRC it was burning/oxidation in metals, not the burning of wood, where mass increase was observed. Right concept, wrong target.

Specifically I think it was a detailed analysis of magnesium.

(pause)

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

“Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Some^[who?] phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on Archimedes' principle, the densities of magnesium and its combustion product showed that just being lighter than air could not account for the increase in mass”

Swansont,  I stand corrected.  You are right that the phlogiston theory wasn't exploded by experiments which involved  the burning of wood.  Wood is too light and variable a substance to display convincing weight differences, on a 18th-century chemical balance,  between raw wood and its combusted ash.  

However,  I do regard with deep suspicion,  your suggestion that phlogiston was debunked by experiments involving magnesium.  Can you offer any evidence for it?

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Swansont,  I stand corrected.  You are right that the phlogiston theory wasn't exploded by experiments which involved  the burning of wood.  Wood is too light and variable a substance to display convincing weight differences, on a 18th-century chemical balance,  between raw wood and its combusted ash.  

However,  I do regard with deep suspicion,  your suggestion that phlogiston was debunked by experiments involving magnesium.  Can you offer any evidence for it?

You mean other than the wikipedia link? (which lists reference 9 as its source). It’s mentioned in a number of articles, but I never looked for earlier sources.