A new way to think.

[cperkinson]

When you learn a new concept, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, sleep on it. After initially reading or being told about whatever it is that you're learning, go home, fall asleep, and then dwell on the matter at hand upon waking up. Many great scientists have reported using this technique. The idea is that the newly found knowledge simply marinades, making it easier to understand and in turn allowing more to be learned from it. Just dwell on something and sleep on it a few times. YOU'LL GET IT EVENTUALLY.

[mooeypoo]

Don't forget, though, that in physics, concepts are not really valid until they have some mathematical construct to them. "Sleep on it" is a great advice, but you should also work on some mathematical and observational constructs if your intention is to prove your theory or convince anyone that it has any merit.

[cperkinson]

For some reason i find myself coming up with ideas without mathematical construction. I merely use logistics and let everyone else do the grunt work.

[mooeypoo]

That's fine, but take into account that what we *think* is logical isn't always so. If a current theory has strong mathematical constructs, they help us predict new events.

 

For example, the theory of relativity does not merely explain the relationship of time in different frames, it also *accurately* predicts what would happen when/if we change frames of reference. That increases the credibility of the theory, it makes it *helpful*. Useful.

 

If a theory is merely theoretical, it fits the realm of philosophy rather than physics. Those can be interesting discussions,but they don't quite 'crush' our current theories, or any theories, without showing that they're more useful in fitting to reality (and predicting it).

 

~moo

[cperkinson]

I am aware that you are refering to my Bashing the big bang theory post from earlier. Please, try to disprove it with all the mathematics that are out there. I will make the prediction that it cannot be done.

[iNow]

I am aware that you are refering to my Bashing the big bang theory post from earlier. Please, try to disprove it with all the mathematics that are out there. I will make the prediction that it cannot be done.

 

Well... At least that's falsifiable.

[cperkinson]

Define falsifiable.. i am ignorant to it's meaning.

[ajb]

Define falsifiable.. i am ignorant to it's meaning.

 

In this context it means one could (at least in principle) perform an experiment or observation that does not agree with your theory/assertion to a satisfactory level of accuracy.

 

It is quite a subtle issue "proving" or "disproving" physical theories.

 

Now try applying that to what iNow has said.

[cperkinson]

okay i see no reason to further this argument if i will be ganged up on

[Ophiolite]

Hello cperkinson,

we haven't interacted before.

 

I don't think anyone is ganging up on you. You asked for a definition of falsifiable. ajb offered you such an explanation.

 

Since you are unfamiliar with the terminology a few further words on the topic may be of interest to you. The concept was pormoted and described by the philosopher Karl Popper back in the 1960s. He argued that no scientific hypothesis could be considered valid unless there was some experiment or observation that could potentially disprove it. Most scientists would consider this a vital part of any hypothesis. Part of this means that one should be able to make predictions based on the hypothesis. If the predictions prove true that tends to confirm and support the hypothesis. (It can never be proved true, only proved false.) If the predictions are not borne out then the hypothesis is seen to be incorrect - it has been falsified.

 

You made a prediction in an earlier post, so iNow was making the lighthearted comment that such a prediction was, at least, falsifiable.

 

In relation to your op I think there is research out there that confirms we can assimilate data and new ideas while sleeping. Anecdotally I often deliberately sleep on a problem and wake up with the solution. However, as mooeypoo may be suggesting, this only works for oneself. It still needs conventional, falsifiable experiment and rigorous mathematics to convince others.

[Mokele]

You do realize that *any* new theory or finding is rigorously examined by the scientific community, right? And that in order to publish a paper, you have to get it past peer review, in which at least two other scientists will read it thoroughly and pick apart every detail from major methodological flaws to the choice of colors for your graphs?

 

If your response to criticism is to take your ball and go home, you're not going to get far in science.

[cperkinson]

I see. My appologies. I thought it was a stab in the back of sorts.

[CaptainPanic]

I see. My appologies. I thought it was a stab in the back of sorts.

 

Nope.

In science everybody is constantly b*tching about each other's theories until they're convinced themselves that this theory is the best explanation.

 

The only way to find out is to, as was said before, really try to pick it apart.

 

If picking it apart doesn't work, there might be some truth in it!

[cperkinson]

URGH, peer review!

[J.C.MacSwell]

okay i see no reason to further this argument if i will be ganged up on

 

When you are ready, you will welcome it.

[iNow]

To continue with the light-heartedness... This cartoon may help to get the point across more thoroughly.

 

 

[Phi for All]

I merely use logistics and let everyone else do the grunt work.

You need to do the grunt work. It's important. Imagine trying to design a space craft without knowing how systems are affected by zero gravity.

 

Doing the grunt work will also help you understand the difference between logistics and *logic*. The small things really do make a big difference.

[Dr.]

doesn't the very nature of the word theory imply that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

[D H]

doesn't the very nature of the word theory imply that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

No. That is the lay interpretation of the word. A scientific theory represents the pinnacle of scientific thinking.

 

What cannot be done is to prove a theory to be true with no doubt whatsoever.

[Dr.]

"What cannot be done is to prove a theory to be true with no doubt whatsoever."

 

 

The same as I said, simply phrased differently

 

and now you are entering in to the realm of philosophy, since many philosophers have speculated that nothing can be proven to a point of no doubt.

 

so to explain, scientific theory is no more valid than biblical theory, it just has a mathematical nature about it and seems (to the limit of our senses and apparent understanding) to conform to patterns and be re-produced.

[Phi for All]

"What cannot be done is to prove a theory to be true with no doubt whatsoever."

 

 

The same as I said, simply phrased differently

Absolutely, unequivocally false.

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely different from "with no doubt whatsoever". Let's be intellectually honest here, please.

 

and now you are entering in to the realm of philosophy, since many philosophers have speculated that nothing can be proven to a point of no doubt.

No, you are committing a logical fallacy called False Dilemma. Entering the realm of philosophy is hardly the only choice here.

 

so to explain, scientific theory is no more valid than biblical theory, it just has a mathematical nature about it and seems (to the limit of our senses and apparent understanding) to conform to patterns and be re-produced.

In the sense that a NASA physicist lecturing about his astrophysics experiment is no more valid regarding astronomy than a street corner crackpot preaching alien conspiracies, yes. I basically read your statement as, "Science is the same as religion, except that it's testable, makes valid predictions, reflects reality and is more open to correction as new knowledge emerges".

[Mokele]

No, completely wrong.

 

You are confusing "reasonable doubt" with "doubt". "Reasonable doubt" means that alternative possibilities not only exist, but are logically plausible and can account for the data. "Doubt" simply means that there is some possibility of a different explanation, no matter how bizarre, convoluted, weird, or otherwise incredibly improbable.

 

For instance, if I walk up to you in a store and hand you $5, there can be no "reasonable doubt" that it actually happened (you saw me, witnesses saw me, you have evidence with my fingerprints on it), but there is always some level of doubt (since it may have been a robot duplicate, or a clone, or a hallucination).

 

Scientific theories can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (such as evolution), but anything "biblical" doesn't even get to be called a theory (since it lacks empirical, repeatable, testable evidence), and is much, much more open to doubt.

[Dr.]

your arguments assume that the term reasonable has a quantifiable meaning. What to one man seems reasonable can to another seem to be complete folly.

 

relate this to the philosophy of Zeno, he argued that motion was impossible, he stated that:

 

" even granting motion, one could never arrive anywhere, not even to such a simple goal as a door. Before one can get to the door, you must go halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway of the remaining halfway, but before you can do that, you must go halfway of the halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway. When does this argument end? Never! It goes on for infinity. Therefore, even something so simple as motion would be impossible, even if it were possible"

 

so you see my friends, nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, even a reasonable doubt, as these are not measurable quantities, and even things that are apparently measurable have an inherent un-measurability about them.

[Phi for All]

your arguments assume that the term reasonable has a quantifiable meaning. What to one man seems reasonable can to another seem to be complete folly.

 

relate this to the philosophy of Zeno, he argued that motion was impossible, he stated that:

 

" even granting motion, one could never arrive anywhere, not even to such a simple goal as a door. Before one can get to the door, you must go halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway of the remaining halfway, but before you can do that, you must go halfway of the halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway. When does this argument end? Never! It goes on for infinity. Therefore, even something so simple as motion would be impossible, even if it were possible"

 

so you see my friends, nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, even a reasonable doubt, as these are not measurable quantities, and even things that are apparently measurable have an inherent un-measurability about them.

Nice boatload of Red Herrings, but that bait doesn't work here. No one here said a scientific theory was 100%, but a theory is backed up by tons of evidence, research and tests. That's why science is more open-minded than religion, it always assumes there can be a better answer.

[Dr.]

interesting, so, something that does not conform to your independent view of reality is labeled as untruth?

Edited June 24, 2009 by Dr.
reason