What is and isn't science

[SkepticLance]

To elas

 

I am puzzled. Could you please explain why you think what I said is 'on dangerous ground?'

[elas]

To elas

 

I am puzzled. Could you please explain why you think what I said is 'on dangerous ground?'

 

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

[Klaynos]

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

 

You need to learn what science really is before you make statements like that. Sorry to be blunt but it's true.

[swansont]

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

 

In that sense, Newtonian mechanics is nothing more than mathematical prediction, either.

 

Having a Nobel prize is not proof against having wacky ideas. It may get you a pass on getting an audience to listen to you, but you still ultimately evaluate ideas based on merit rather than pedigree. Linus Pauling had views on vitamin C that were crap, and the list doesn't end there.

[lucaspa]

For whatever reasons, this thread got entitled "what is and isn't science". Oh boy.

 

That title, people, is what is called the Demarcation Problem. Scientists and philosophers of science have tried various ways to say what is and isn't science for over 2500 years (it goes back to Aristotle). All those ways have failed. Either they leave out what is in science, they include what we consider not science, or both.

 

Most quantum physicists have concluded that single events at the quantum level do not have a cause. Personally, I like this (not that it matters to the universe what I like or don't like). If every event has a defined cause and we live in a strictly deterministic universe, then free will and meaning disappear from our lives. If everything we do is strictly caused by something that has gone before, and you can trace this back to First Cause, then my life was irrevocably set then. I'm just a biological robot going thru the motions. Why should I bother?

 

However, if there are events that are not caused by previous events, then the future is open and my actions are not strictly determined by what has gone before.

 

There have been physicists -- like Bohm -- that have tried to reintroduce strict determinism into quantum mechanics. Again, on a personal level, I'm happy they have failed.

 

Playing "dirty" with the data violates the ethics we expect from scientists. So I would hope that Elas will get specific with that charge of having a scientist's work misfiled in arXiv.

[swansont]

Playing "dirty" with the data violates the ethics we expect from scientists. So I would hope that Elas will get specific with that charge of having a scientist's work misfiled in arXiv.

 

I may be misremembering the details, but I think it's similar to how certain arguments get "misfiled" here on SFN. That is, they are not misfiled at all from the moderator's perspective, just put in the appropriate section, though the author disagrees.

 

———

 

More to the point of this thread, though, finding a pattern in some data is insufficient to call it science or even a discovery. Humans find patterns in things, even when no real pattern exists. We're suckers for the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy and confirmation bias. Which is why more rigor is demanded if you want to call something science.

 

Having a model that will explain everything isn't science, either. You have to be able to falsify the model, which is one reason it needs to make specific predictions. The model needs to have the ability to be verifiably wrong, as opposed to being able to simultaneously explain the presence and absence of some phenomenon.

[Vexer]

Are you in any sense satisfied with those responses SkepticLance

[SkepticLance]

To vexer

 

Satisfaction is not what I am seeking. I am searching for intellectual stimulation - new ideas - new ways of seeing things - new views of the universe. I find all these comments of interest, and so 'satisfying'. There is no final answer to any aspect of science - just the ongoing search. And the search is satisfaction in itself.

 

lucaspa said :

 

"Scientists and philosophers of science have tried various ways to say what is and isn't science for over 2500 years (it goes back to Aristotle). "

 

My own view is that there is true science and false science. True science dates back only a few hundred years. I regard it as beginning with Francis Bacon and his insistence on empirical evidence. Aristotle thought that all causes could be obtained by deduction, if we were just smart enough. To me, that is not science. It is perhaps a touch above astrology, but not much.

 

Of course, before modern science, there were a few people who thought more or less scientifically anyway, and made good contributions. That does not make my view of empiricism wrong.