Science and the Scientific method (split from Is there the proof of heliocentrism?)

[molbol2000]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's the opposite of what I said. There's lots of evidence, and all science is based on models, so "just a model" is an odd description. 

All speculative science only like mathematics and so on. If the model is a generalization of experience, then it is real natural science. And astronomy is still considered as such

At least formal

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The aetheric wind is a model, too, BTW. One that's contradicted by the evidence.

Only that it is not found on the surface of the earth (leaving aside the question of correct measurement for now)?

By the way, in my personal opinion, the wave nature of light is direct evidence of aether, because a wave outside the environment is an oxymoron
So, in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Edited October 19, 2020 by molbol2000

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

All speculative science only like mathematics and so on. If the model is a generalization of experience, then it is real natural science. And astronomy is still considered as such

You don't get to decide what science is, and a "generalization of experience" is not what science is. 

 

21 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

At least formal

Only that it is not found on the surface of the earth (leaving aside the question of correct measurement for now)?

Then it's moot. If aether is not responsible for what we observe on earth, why would you expect it to appear elsewhere? We can already explain the phenomena without relying on an aether.

And we do know that the results we get here apply elsewhere, because we can analyze signals from planets and stars and see e.g. spectroscopic data from them, which confirm that our models are correct.

 

21 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

By the way, in my personal opinion, the wave nature of light is direct evidence of aether, because a wave outside the environment is an oxymoron
So, in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Science excludes personal opinions. Science only cares about what evidence you have, and whether your model agrees with experiment. 

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

collisions change movement. Space is not sterile, there is dust and particles

This topic is related, I have already said exactly how.

I have already given the evidence, I believe that the wave nature of light proves a luminiferous medium (aether)

If you insist, we can not discuss it

How exactly is gravity with heliocentrism?

 

In general, gravity itself is an extremely dubious hypothesis, because it provides for action at a distance, which is generally rejected by science and has never been observed anywhere.

That is not prove of gravitation hypothesis,

Scientists have no interest in proof (which is unattainable), but rather describing behaviour of things and utility of ideas.

[molbol2000]

Just now, StringJunky said:

Scientists have no interest in proof (which is unattainable), but rather describing behaviour of things and utility of ideas.

This approach leads to fraud

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

(which is unattainable

if postulates are obtained inductively from experience, they are not completely reliable, but they are more reliable than mere speculation. This is verification, scientific method

[molbol2000]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

utility of ideas.

This is interconnected. Speculative science XX-XXI centuties produce almost nothing

Edited October 19, 2020 by molbol2000

[molbol2000]

Just now, swansont said:

The default position on this site is that science and the scientific method is valid, and that has to underlie all scientific discussions.

If you have an argument with the basis of science, that can be discussed in Speculations, and only if you have an actual argument that is backed up with evidence. Not hand-waving.

As far as I understand, the scientific method I am talking about, that is, based solely on experience, at least for the natural sciences has not been canceled, it is still declared, but it is not respected

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

As far as I understand, the scientific method I am talking about, that is, based solely on experience,

What do you mean by "based solely on experience"? That's not particularly descriptive. What experience? Whose experience? What kind of experience?

 

8 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

at least for the natural sciences has not been canceled, it is still declared, but it is not respected

?

22 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

This approach leads to fraud

if postulates are obtained inductively from experience, they are not completely reliable, but they are more reliable than mere speculation. This is verification, scientific method

Obtained inductively, with verification, is not proof. You seem to be insisting on contradictory definitions.

[molbol2000]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

What do you mean by "based solely on experience"? That's not particularly descriptive. What experience? Whose experience? What kind of experience?

For physics, this is the observation of nature. This is actually a strange question, I don't even know how to answer it so as not to offend anyone
Do you understand the differense between declarations and facts?

 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

?

The simplest example with Newton's laws, they are not taken from experience, but simply declared (although Newton relied on the ancient Greek sophists, this is not again not an objective experience)

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Obtained inductively, with verification, is not proof. You seem to be insisting on contradictory definitions.

But is a solid foundation

[swansont]

2 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

For physics, this is the observation of nature.

Observation, sure. That's a better description than "experience"

However, observation/experiment is not all of science. There is the modeling. You have to be able to quantitatively predict as well as explain.

 

2 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

 The simplest example with Newton's laws, they are not taken from experience, but simply declared (although Newton relied on the ancient Greek sophists, this is not again not an objective experience)

And Newton's laws are mathematical and used to make models, so we can solve for the motions of objects.

Quote

But is a solid foundation

There is still no proof, because it is inductive. You can disprove, by finding that a prediction is wrong, but can never prove.

 

[molbol2000]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is still no proof, because it is inductive

All people are cucumbers
Socrate is man
Socrate is cucumber

 

This is deduction without induction

Edited October 19, 2020 by molbol2000

[Mad For Science]

On 10/19/2020 at 7:21 PM, molbol2000 said:

By the way, in my personal opinion, the wave nature of light is direct evidence of aether, because a wave outside the environment is an oxymoron
So, in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Neither science nor reality cares about anyone's opinion.