Impersonal science

[owl]

Just a whim.

Everybody here has an opinion. What if science were totally objective in the sense of no personal opinions about what is correct science?... Just the most classical epistemology of what we know and how we know it?

 

That would be a whole new 'science forum', and I have never seen one that was impersonal, beyond opinion, and encouraging *civil* discussion of all science, including all disagreements.

 

Alternative titles were 'subjective vs objective' science and

'what is objective science?'

 

I've seen no transcendence of personal opinion yet in this forum.

 

This discussion can become more specific, but I'll leave it open for now. I'm not allowed to discuss my favorite subjects here anymore.

 

It could have been put in the philosophy section, but my threads are usually moved to the "pseudoscience" section anyway, because I'm usually too radical in my criticisms of mainstream science.

[Phi for All]

I don't think it's the subjects that elicit the responses you mention. I think it's the way they're presented. If it's your opinion, or something you believe but have no evidence for, it needs to be stated that way.

 

If you make your arguments sound like scientific theory, be prepared to provide evidence that supports them. And be prepared for others to bring counter evidence if they have it. It's not how "radical" your criticisms are, it's how they're supported.

[owl]

I don't think it's the subjects that elicit the responses you mention. I think it's the way they're presented. If it's your opinion, or something you believe but have no evidence for, it needs to be stated that way. [/Quote]

 

Agreed. That is the point of the topic, science beyond personal opinion. Who here believes s/he is totally objective in approach to science, without subjective bias?

 

If you make your arguments sound like scientific theory, be prepared to provide evidence that supports them. And be prepared for others to bring counter evidence if they have it. It's not how "radical" your criticisms are, it's how they're supported.

 

Yes. But theoretical speculation, a vital part of science, does not require evidence. It's speculation in hope of future verification in many cases.

 

Most cosmologies will never be verified or subjected to falsification.

Like M-theory. "Respected" science or totally metaphysical speculation? Do 'they' provide evidence for the 11 dimensional universe of membranes made of assorted kinds of strings? No. But they are such well credentialed physicists.

 

There is a double standard in effect in this forum... mostly based on "credentials" and mostly biased toward physicists opinions about ... most generally... 'the nature of things', and 'how objective are those opinions?' is the subject of this thread.

 

But that is just my opinion.

 

I invite unbiased science transcending opinion, if such exists here.

Edited March 31, 2012 by owl

[md65536]

Everybody here has an opinion. What if science were totally objective in the sense of no personal opinions about what is correct science?... Just the most classical epistemology of what we know and how we know it?

 

That would be a whole new 'science forum', and I have never seen one that was impersonal, beyond opinion, and encouraging *civil* discussion of all science, including all disagreements.

My experience has been that when you do as much science as I have (both in blog form and in spreadsheets) you tend to lose subjective bias when you realize that the maths say something other than what you expected, and that what you expected can't be. Also, you tend to gain objectiveness when you realize that your results can be interpreted in a different way that may be equally valid.

 

To be absolutely objective may require abandoning all of our subjective experience, but then where would you start? What does epistemology have left to say after we remove subjective experience as a basis of understanding?

 

 

 

I think you are being ironic, because you're suggesting that including subjective disagreement would make things more objective, as if it is just a matter of opinion as to which maths work and which don't, or a matter of opinion as to which theories correspond to experimental measurements and which don't, or a matter of opinion whether the maths even matter.

[swansont]

Yes. But theoretical speculation, a vital part of science, does not require evidence. It's speculation in hope of future verification in many cases.

 

Such speculation is not accepted as true until the experimental/observational verification occurs, and that speculation is within the framework of a (mathematical) model of some sort, so specific predictions can be made.

[ajb]

Everybody here has an opinion. What if science were totally objective in the sense of no personal opinions about what is correct science?... Just the most classical epistemology of what we know and how we know it?

 

That is the ideal that scientists work towards. However, scientists are people who have devoted lots of time and effort on specific things, thus it is not easy to completely be unemotional about topics. Also, when pushing frontiers of knowledge by definition not everything is known or clear. Because of this speculation and informed personal opinions emerge.

 

Such speculation is not accepted as true until the experimental/observational verification occurs, and that speculation is within the framework of a (mathematical) model of some sort, so specific predictions can be made.

 

This is important and often not understood by the general public. Scientists do not just pull ideas out of thin air on a whim. Even the most speculative ideas are based on adding new layers to understood science. Some of these ideas will turn out wrong, even so things are not just wild speculation based on nothing.

[owl]

My experience has been that when you do as much science as I have (both in blog form and in spreadsheets) you tend to lose subjective bias when you realize that the maths say something other than what you expected, and that what you expected can't be. Also, you tend to gain objectiveness when you realize that your results can be interpreted in a different way that may be equally valid.[/Quote]

 

We who are serious about science all have different backgrounds, of course. Mine is a lifelong interest in science as an amateur with nothing more than algebra and intro to calculus as mathematical background. But I've always been keen to think things through and try to "make sense" of the natural world.

So I run into trouble with the parts of relativity, for instance, which rely on math to, for instance, make parallel lines "cross in infinity," or make distances (like Earth's diameter) shorter (contracted) "as seen from" extreme frames of reference.

Like that.

 

To be absolutely objective may require abandoning all of our subjective experience, but then where would you start? What does epistemology have left to say after we remove subjective experience as a basis of understanding?

 

Of course all experience is ultimately subjective, but the challenge of objective science is to minimize bias based on personal opinion. The latter is better understood through a thorough understanding of epistemology, both a-priori (what we already know) and a-posteriori empiricism, both parts of "the scientific method."

 

I think you are being ironic, because you're suggesting that including subjective disagreement would make things more objective, as if it is just a matter of opinion as to which maths work and which don't, or a matter of opinion as to which theories correspond to experimental measurements and which don't, or a matter of opinion whether the maths even matter.

 

A forum which encourages respectful disagreement means, to me, not automatically assuming that "mainstream science" is correct and minority criticism automatically wrong ("crackpot"... etc.) Respectful debate is essential to science, and the more both sides transcend mere personal opinion the better for the discussion and for science.

 

Which is correct gravity theory, GR or Quantum Theory of gravity? The jury is still out, but this forum is gung ho for GR, because the math is in fact such an improvement over Newtonian, and no more debate is allowed as to what exactly it is that "curves" in GR.... and who knows what QM's "graviton" is? (No more on that... just a mention for example.)

 

Such speculation is not accepted as true until the experimental/observational verification occurs, and that speculation is within the framework of a (mathematical) model of some sort, so specific predictions can be made.

I have great respect for scientific skepticism about speculation... therefore requiring experimental/observational verification.

But having a math model or framework for the math does not make it valid. Math requires observable referents "in the world."

That is why I used the M-Theory example. It has plenty of complicated math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world.' Yet quite well respected science in the "popular science" realm. It's all about credentials and popularity.

 

That is the ideal that scientists work towards. However, scientists are people who have devoted lots of time and effort on specific things, thus it is not easy to completely be unemotional about topics. Also, when pushing frontiers of knowledge by definition not everything is known or clear. Because of this speculation and informed personal opinions emerge. [/Quote]

 

I agree. But the extreme bias here seems to be that if you are not a mathematician you are full of crap. The math generates the meaning. Philosophy of science, like what are the 'real world referents', as above, is seen as a distraction form the math/physics, and "who cares 'what it IS' anyway?"

 

This is important and often not understood by the general public. Scientists do not just pull ideas out of thin air on a whim. *Even the most speculative ideas are based on adding new layers to understood science.* Some of these ideas will turn out wrong, even so things are not just wild speculation based on nothing.

 

Yes. I've emphasized your point (*...*) above as very important.

I'm curious how you see M-Theory in that context.

Edited March 31, 2012 by owl

[hypervalent_iodine]

I'm curious how you see M-Theory in that context.

 

!

Moderator Note

Owl, you seem to have a habit of introducing and arguing tangents in almost all of your threads to the point where they end up being 10 + pages of back and forth about issues almost completely separate from those you originally set out to address. I'm going to ask you to stop that here and to henceforth tailor your responses such that they pertain only to the questions you've raised in your OP.

 

I shall now remind you of your questions, which are as follows:

 

What if science were totally objective in the sense of no personal opinions about what is correct science?... Just the most classical epistemology of what we know and how we know it?

 

<...>

 

Alternative titles were 'subjective vs objective' science and 'what is objective science?'

 

!

Moderator Note

Since they are posed in a broader sense, there is no need to delve into specific pet topics ad naseum.

 

Consider this your warning. If you chose to ignore it, this thread will be closed and you will likely be risking suspension.

 

 

[ajb]

But the extreme bias here seems to be that if you are not a mathematician you are full of crap.

 

I am not sure I would go quite that far. Theoretical physics, which is what I think we are really talking about here, is based on the creation and study of mathematical models, including understanding how they relate to nature. The exercise is based on physical intuition and guidance from nature, but ultimately it comes down to pencil on paper and mathematics.

 

Based on this mathematics one can come up with an interpretation, which is a hand-waving restatement in words of some mathematical construct or calculation. Often people bounce these interpretations about without any idea to the underlying mathematical constructs.

 

 

I'm curious how you see M-Theory in that context.

 

Well, we better listen to the above moderator post. If you want to discuss M-theory we can do that in another thread.

[Phi for All]

A forum which encourages respectful disagreement means, to me, not automatically assuming that "mainstream science" is correct and minority criticism automatically wrong ("crackpot"... etc.) Respectful debate is essential to science, and the more both sides transcend mere personal opinion the better for the discussion and for science.

To me, these two statements are spot on. I never assume mainstream science is "correct", it just usually has more evidence to support it. "Minority criticism" isn't automatically wrong, but I normally never see it supported even in a rudimentary sort of way, and certainly not like accepted theory is (accepted being different than "correct").

 

Respect is necessary for discussion as well, but I think when skeptics refuse to "take the leap" that many speculators ask them to, the resulting comments can seem disrespectful. It's not really about opinion at that point, it's more about taking more careful steps to make sure the ground you're walking on is firm. To me, that's why the methodology works, it requires you to remove as much bias as possible and build your arguments on sound foundations.

[Bignose]

but I think when skeptics refuse to "take the leap" that many speculators ask them to, the resulting comments can seem disrespectful.

 

The one written so often about the skeptics (myself almost always included) about "not having an open mind" is the one that always burns me up. Because in most every case, the person writing that is just at least as guilty of that same behavior as the ones he is accusing.

 

In the end it is one of the big reasons I like science: If theory A predicts 12.4 and theory B predict 12.7 and the observation is 12.75, the second theory is considered better at that prediction, by a measurable objective amount. In the end, it is all about accurate predictions.

[Phi for All]

The one written so often about the skeptics (myself almost always included) about "not having an open mind" is the one that always burns me up. Because in most every case, the person writing that is just at least as guilty of that same behavior as the ones he is accusing.

 

In the end it is one of the big reasons I like science: If theory A predicts 12.4 and theory B predict 12.7 and the observation is 12.75, the second theory is considered better at that prediction, by a measurable objective amount. In the end, it is all about accurate predictions.

I'm fairly liberal in my outlook about most things, but I don't look to science for gut feelings and intuitive leaps. I'd rather be considered hidebound and plodding and know that the explanations I accept are supported by sound methodology, rather than be thought of as a pioneer who hacks his way through the jungle of mystery swinging wildly with the machete of intuition and always wonder if I didn't miss the best trail back where the undergrowth was thickest.

[swansont]

The one written so often about the skeptics (myself almost always included) about "not having an open mind" is the one that always burns me up. Because in most every case, the person writing that is just at least as guilty of that same behavior as the ones he is accusing.

 

In the end it is one of the big reasons I like science: If theory A predicts 12.4 and theory B predict 12.7 and the observation is 12.75, the second theory is considered better at that prediction, by a measurable objective amount. In the end, it is all about accurate predictions.

 

A nit: in science the experimental error is typically quantified so that we have a bound on the uncertainty. If the result was 12.75 ± 0.08, we would exclude theory A and accept B. However, if the result happened to be 12.75 ± 0.5, we would not. We would look for a better experiment.

 

Which is correct gravity theory, GR or Quantum Theory of gravity? The jury is still out, but this forum is gung ho for GR, because the math is in fact such an improvement over Newtonian, and no more debate is allowed as to what exactly it is that "curves" in GR.... and who knows what QM's "graviton" is? (No more on that... just a mention for example.)

 

It's an ill-posed question. There is no confirmed quantum theory of gravity. However, if/when one is developed to this point, it will agree with GR in the areas where the quantum effects are not noticed.

 

I have great respect for scientific skepticism about speculation... therefore requiring experimental/observational verification.

But having a math model or framework for the math does not make it valid. Math requires observable referents "in the world."

That is why I used the M-Theory example. It has plenty of complicated math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world.' Yet quite well respected science in the "popular science" realm. It's all about credentials and popularity.

 

Popular science ≠ science. I contend that M-theory is a poor example; one reason is the adage that anything with "theory" in the name isn't really a theory. M-theory is scientific conjecture. You're in the middle of the process of seeing if it pans out.

 

I agree. But the extreme bias here seems to be that if you are not a mathematician you are full of crap. The math generates the meaning. Philosophy of science, like what are the 'real world referents', as above, is seen as a distraction form the math/physics, and "who cares 'what it IS' anyway?"

 

The bias for math is the degree of precision it generates in the testing of an hypothesis. Falsifiability is an essential part of forming a proper theory.

[Bignose]

A nit: in science the experimental error is typically quantified so that we have a bound on the uncertainty. If the result was 12.75 ± 0.08, we would exclude theory A and accept B. However, if the result happened to be 12.75 ± 0.5, we would not. We would look for a better experiment.

 

nit accepted. And taken even the step further, there exists the possibility of a Bayesian analysis in which one can actually quantify how likely each theory would have produced the result. That is, in some cases, we can actually estimate a quantification of how much more better one theory is than another.

[owl]

How is the above nit picking about the finer points of statistical analysis on topic as above strictly mandated?

 

Hypervalent_idodine:

 

Owl, you seem to have a habit of introducing and arguing tangents in almost all of your threads.

...

Since they are posed in a broader sense, there is no need to delve into specific pet topics ad naseum.

 

Further, Swansont replied to my examples of GR vs QM gravitational theories... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists, but I am not allowed to reply. Likewise to the example of M-theory as, "math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world"... as per the opinion that math trumps meaning, no observable referents required. If the above gag rule applies to me it also applies to swansont and others.

 

Ps: Just wondering how the judgment "ad naseam" is not a personal opinion. No answer required to any of the above. It would be off topic.

Edited April 2, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

How is the above nit picking about the finer points of statistical analysis on topic as above strictly mandated?

 

There was a degree of ambiguity in Bignose's response, which was about the utility of math in science, which is a point you raised. How is it not on-topic? You were asked not to use the general question as a jumping-off point to rail against M-theory.

 

Further, Swansont replied to my examples of GR vs QM gravitational theories... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists, but I am not allowed to reply.

 

I did no such thing. I made a statement of fact: any valid QM theory will reduce to/agree with its classical counterpart when on a scale that the QM behavior is not evident. It has to. There's no opinion there.

 

And you seem to have missed the point of the warning. Of course you can respond, as long as you aren't going to change the subject into a discussion of the theories themselves. (hypervalent_iodine will correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Likewise to the example of M-theory as, "math/physics with nada for 'observable referents in the world"... as per the opinion that math trumps meaning, no observable referents required. If the above gag rule applies to me it also applies to swansont and others.

 

I'm not discussing the details of M-theory. I merely observe that it is a work in progress and not yet accepted in the science community, and won't be until it is experimentally tested. You will hear scientists moan and groan if one starts projecting from any string theory as if it were known to be correct. Things are different in the pop-sci community, of course, but as I pointed out, pop-sci is not to be confused with real science. With the example of M-theory you give the options of respected science or totally metaphysical speculation and the answer is it's neither. It's valid scientific speculation. It has a mathematical framework, but has not yet passed any tests. (IIRC one version of string theory has actually been falsified)

 

Your stated topic claimed that the discussions were about opinions and how objective those opinions are, and that it's all about credentials. I call BS on that. A recurring theme here is "what scientific evidence do you have?" and one's ability to back up their claims. People listen to me, for example, not because I go around flashing my PhD badge (I don't), but because I have a track record of being right about the factual matters I discuss (and acknowledging and accepting correction when I'm wrong) and also of backing up what I claim. That I have a degree correlates strongly with being right, for me and for others, but if someone showed up claiming expertise but were clearly full of it, people would quickly stop listening to them. They might even be tempted to check out the claims of expertise. Credibility, here as in the real world, is earned.

[owl]

A clarification:

I said,

Further, Swansont replied to my examples of GR vs QM gravitational theories... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists, but I am not allowed to reply.

He said:

I did no such thing.

 

I meant to say "my examples... as differences of opinion among gravitational theorists..."... not that "Swansont replied... as differences of opinion" as if he thought they were differences of opinion. My meaning was not very clear.

 

To make my point more clearly, GR theorists 'like' mass curving space as the 'mechanics' of how gravity works, while QM theorists 'like' an equally mysterious mechanism or agent of gravity, the graviton. This appears to be a difference of opinion as to how gravity works. So the popularity of GR here does not make it the "accepted" theory of gravity.

 

(My bold)

.... Theoretical physics, which is what I think we are really talking about here, is based on the creation and study of mathematical models, including understanding how they relate to nature. The exercise is based on physical intuition and guidance from nature, but ultimately it comes down to pencil on paper and mathematics. [/Quote]

 

Isn't the "how (the models) relate to nature" part where all that "ontological nonsense" comes in?... (clearly a very negative *opinion* of ontology)

... Like what in nature exactly is it that is theorized to be curved by mass in GR? Doesn't the " creation and study of mathematical models" require that they have identifiable referents in the real world, in nature? Isn't the question "what curves besides the obvious paths of objects around other objects?"... a valid question?

 

Or is that just my "opinion" as contrasted with the prevailing "opinion" here among physicists/mathematicians, that what it (whatever) IS doesn't matter as long as the math works well within the framework of the model?

Edited April 3, 2012 by owl

[md65536]

So the popularity of GR here does not make it the "accepted" theory of gravity.

You are correct. It is the thoroughness and the preciseness with which the theory's predictions match experimental observations that make it the accepted theory of gravity. As swansont has pointed out, any QM theory of gravity will at least correspond to the experimentally confirmed predictions made by GR before it is accepted.

 

If evidence of gravitons is found, it will not be evidence that spacetime isn't curved, unless the evidence also somehow invalidates GR in some spectacular fashion. If you want to prove that spacetime isn't curved, you need an alternative that precisely explains all of the phenomena that otherwise confirm that spacetime is curved. There is no such alternative yet.

 

 

[owl]

 

If you want to prove that spacetime isn't curved, you need an alternative that precisely explains all of the phenomena that otherwise confirm that spacetime is curved. There is no such alternative yet.

I am "walking on eggs" here vis-a-vis the warning above. There is a very clear difference of *opinion* here.

 

You go ahead and speak of "spacetime" being curved as quite well established by the math in the context of the model, but yet you do not address the question, as I stated it above,

"Isn't the question 'what curves besides the obvious paths of objects around other objects?'... a valid question?"

 

Is there not a very obvious *bias* against ontology here... that "what it is" does not matter?

 

This just happens to be a very clear *example* of the theme question, "What if personal opinion really didn't matter?"

[md65536]

Is there not a very obvious *bias* against ontology here... that "what it is" does not matter?

No bias. What precise predictions does ontology make?

[mississippichem]

No bias. What precise predictions does ontology make?

 

Good question md. I'll go further and ask how one might falsify any said ontology if someone bothered to come up with it?

[The Observer]

There is a very good reason Ontology is a philosophy subject, and not a science subject.

[owl]

No bias. What precise predictions does ontology make?

It doesn't. It asks how curved spacetime (sans any ontology of what it is) is vital to relativity's very accurate predictions of the curved paths of objects (and light) around other masses. In other words, you still did not answer my direct question above:

"yet you do not address the question"...

 

So your opinion about spacetime as a vital coordinate system/model for GR theory refuses to address "what it is," which, in my opinion is a vital component of understanding the proposed theory of gravity, the mechanics of how it works in the natural world... what "guides" objects in curved paths.

[md65536]

It doesn't. It asks how curved spacetime (sans any ontology of what it is) is vital to relativity's very accurate predictions of the curved paths of objects (and light) around other masses. In other words, you still did not answer my direct question above:

"yet you do not address the question"...

Anyone can address the question. IF addressing it produces results, the results (not the question, I think) may be considered science. For example, knowing what a material is in terms of chemical composition yields predictions of how that material will behave.

 

 

So your opinion about spacetime as a vital coordinate system/model for GR theory refuses to address "what it is," which, in my opinion is a vital component of understanding the proposed theory of gravity, the mechanics of how it works in the natural world... what "guides" objects in curved paths.

To answer your original question in this thread, I'd say that if opinions such as theses didn't matter, things would be pretty much as they are now. Further I'd say that opinions such as these don't matter.

 

(Prove that spacetime isn't vital and my opinion is irrelevant. Prove that addressing "what it is" makes a difference in predicting or modelling how things behave, and your opinion becomes accepted science.)

[owl]

To answer your original question in this thread, I'd say that if opinions such as theses didn't matter, things would be pretty much as they are now. Further I'd say that opinions such as these don't matter. [/Quote]

 

"...I'd say..." That is your opinion. Mine is different. I have always been interested in science as investigation leading to a better understanding of the natural world, so ontological investigation of what it is that we are talking about, in any case, seems to me to be a vital and central part of science.

 

(Prove that spacetime isn't vital and my opinion is irrelevant. Prove that addressing "what it is" makes a difference in predicting or modelling how things behave, and your opinion becomes accepted science.)

 

As to the above, I am still hoping to hear from ajb regarding his statements of 3/31, post 9 and my reply yesterday, post 17. Here it is again for quick ref, (still my bold):

ajb:

.... Theoretical physics, which is what I think we are really talking about here, is based on the creation and study of mathematical models, including understanding how they relate to nature. The exercise is based on physical intuition and guidance from nature, but ultimately it comes down to pencil on paper and mathematics.

 

me:

Isn't the "how (the models) relate to nature" part where all that "ontological nonsense" comes in?... (clearly a very negative *opinion* of ontology)

... Like what in nature exactly is it that is theorized to be curved by mass in GR? Doesn't the " creation and study of mathematical models" require that they have identifiable referents in the real world, in nature? Isn't the question "what curves besides the obvious paths of objects around other objects?"... a valid question?

 

Or is that just my "opinion" as contrasted with the prevailing "opinion" here among physicists/mathematicians, that what it (whatever) IS doesn't matter as long as the math works well within the framework of the model?

If no answer, I will just give up on it, because it is the best example I know of the opinion here that "what it is (generally speaking) doesn't matter," which is contrary to the purpose of science investigating the real world, in my opinion.