Why should proponents of alternative theories learn accepted science first?

[mooeypoo]

I haven't dismissed your post and I haven't refused to elaborate on the assumptions I noted, I'm simply focussing on a different task before I return to that.

But you've been concentrating on a single aspect of this conversation that is convenient to you. That's not quite the way things work on an online forum.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a better science person" but this almost seems like you're putting forward the argument from authority!

No, argument from authority would be if I said "Swansont must be right because he has a PhD in Physics," which no one is saying.

 

Asking you if you think you are a better science person is not argument from authority, especially since you seem adamant in critisizing the way we proclaim to do science.

 

It was yet another question you beat around the bush with. It's getting quite tiring, rah.

I don't have my answer from ajb yet; the discussion has stalled after I asked ajb to confirm whether he still maintains that it is not possible for a theory to match nature while contradicting what is found in text books.

This isn't a 2-man debate, rah, it's a science forum, a forum is a public place where you should meet many people's comments. I know it might be tough to multitask, but we're not talking about being attacked with 50 different angles.. you can continue waiting for whatever you think ajb "owes you" for an answer and still relate to other points that are raised.

 

For that matter, I think my post summarizes the crux of the issue that many others tried to explain to you through the repetitive insistence to avoid uncomfortable questions and frame the discussion so it would be more convenient for you to argue.

Yes, I do mind. My purpose in coming here was to understand why ajb made his original statement, "you are better off learning about more accepted ideas". My question was to ajb. I'm willing to follow short side discussions with others but to be blunt my primary concern is with ajb's reasoning and nobody else's.

But ajb is not the only one that can explain that statement, especially since we all share the sentiment. You're not supposed to be here to pwn a single person, or to pin a single person to the wall so they answer you. You're here to discuss the merits of claims, and ajb is not the only person that can argue the merit of true claims.

 

Seriously, dude, I think you should go over the rules of the forum one more time.

When I've completed the task of understanding ajb's statement, and answered the question ajb asked that I said I would respond to, I'll happily come back and respond to your post.

You don't seem to WANT to, though. As I said, other people explain things and you seem to beat around the bush and avoid the ansewrs when they don't quite suit you, and then concentrate on a single wording aspect of given arguments. This just confuses people, make them forget what it is they wanted to say as an actual point, and make you feel like you are "winning".

 

This isn't about winning, it's about discussing the merits of ajb's post, which (if you didn't notice) most of the scientists in this forum agree with.**

 

Are you here to discuss, or to pwn?

 

~mooey

 

** Before you argue that this is an argument from authority, read what argument from authority means. I am not saying ajb's statement is true BECAUSE most of the scientists in the forum agree with it (that would've been argument from authority), but I am saying that there are many other people who agree with ajb and can join the argument in explaining WHY his claim has merit. I'm saying you should stop waiting for a single person to take the time and formulate an answer other people may have formulated because they agree with him, just so you can avoid dealing with the actual claims.

 

[rah]

This is all just going round in circles.

Indeed. This is our conversation as I see it:

 

<ajb> X is not possible

<rah> why is X not possible?

<ajb> X is not possible

<rah> why not?

<ajb> the probability of the inverse of X, ~X, is very high

<rah> but if the probability of ~X is not 1, the probability of X is not 0, therefore while it might be improbable by your assessment, it is at least possible right?

<ajb> no, X is not possible

<rah> why not?

<ajb> I expect X is not possible

<rah> my question is about logic, not your expectations; do you acknowledge that even though you expect X is not possible, it could be possible?

<ajb> there is something wrong with this discussion

<rah> there is nothing wrong with this discussion

<ajb> X is not possible because Y

<rah> why must it be the case that Y is true?

<ajb> Y is true

<rah> why?

<swansont> I love lamp!

<ajb> the probability of Y is very high

<rah> but if the probability of the inverse of Y, ~Y, is not 0, then surely you must acknowledge that it is possible?

<ajb> no, I find it hard to believe that ~Y is true

<rah> my question is about logic, not your beliefs; do you acknowledge that ~Y could be possible?

<ajb> I believe Y is true

<rah> but do you acknowledge that it could possibly be false?

<ajb> I don't like this line of questioning, we're just going round in circles

 

 

I think I understand now the state of mind behind your original assertion that one should learn accepted ideas first.

 

You seem to be displaying a pathological avoidance of publically acknowledging the epistemological limitations of physics and science in general. There seems to be a psychological barrier here.

 

I'd like to make a final query: does any part of your income come directly from either the physics community or the more general science community? Do you have any vested interests in either of these communities?

Edited December 19, 2012 by rah

[ajb]

You seem to be displaying a pathological avoidance of publically acknowledging the epistemological limitations of physics and science in general. There seems to be a psychological barrier here.

We have not really discussed that. What we have talked about is the idea of a theory being "good" (which is a bit subjective) and what we mean by an accepted theory: "within the error bars or close enough".

 

Any theory will have a range of parameters for which the theory is "good", and by this we mean predict a set of observable to our required degree of accuracy.

 

My claim is that well established theories are not really going to be destroyed by new results found in experiment. Rather one adds new layers to our understanding and these layers will be consistent. Here I mean in the sense that the two layers don't really contradict each other when one takes appropriate limits or approximations.

 

For example, one can compare classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. In particular we know that quantum mechanics allows objects to randomly tunnel to another point in space. This effect is important on the subatomic scales. Importantly, the probability of a particle or body tunnelling to another point is finite and non-zero.

 

So, why don't we see this for macroscopic objects? Have we really now found fault in both classical and quantum mechanics? Should I now disregard both?

 

Of course not. The probability of a macroscopic object just appearing next to me at random is tiny, so tiny it might as well be zero. I would have to wait for much longer than the Universe is old to have a reasonable chance of seeing this. So, I watch a macroscopic body and wait for it to tunnel away. After some finite time I stop the experiment and conclude that the time scales for this tunnelling are greater than the time I was watching. And really that is about the best I can do. This is consistent with both classical mechanics, which says an infinite amount of time, and quantum mechanics which says a very large amount of time.

 

The other situation you can have is that another theory predicts more observables. This is often the case when comparing simpler "effective theories" and those based on fundamental principles. Neither really contradicts each other, though you can say the fundamental theory is closer to nature in the sense that we have more observables. Is it "better", well that is subjective as the effective theory may be much easier to handle.

 

So, okay maybe another thread is due to the limitations of science.

Can I ask one final question: does any part of your income come directly from either the physics community or the more general science community?

No, but that does not have any bearing on the discussion. I do not receive any grant money of any kind at present.

 

Any scientist would love to over throw physics as we know it, but we know what that means: "add a new layer". It does not mean that everything you learnt before is wrong. A theory being "wrong" is not clear anyway, better to talk about how well it matches nature and existing theories do match many aspects of nature well. Any new wider theories that become established must be able to accommodate what is established now- otherwise it would not be clear why it is established (it does not agree with earlier results?) or it is not clear why our previous theories were established (they are now inconsistent with nature?).

 

Therefore I claim that today's established physics will not be rejected by further experiment, but rather it could be replaced by a wider more encompassing theory.

 

This new theory may look very different to what we have now, and could be full of mathematics we don't have yet. There could be lots of new phenomenology to explore and technological spin-offs. But at some level it must agree with established physics today.

 

For established scientists there is little reason to "tow the party line" (whatever that is). I will concede that for earlier stage researchers there is pressure to work in the mainstream, you want lots of papers cited and grant money. Also you need lots of other peoples papers to get you going.

[rah]

We have not really discussed that.

That's the problem. The fact that you cannot escape from your bounded views to address the epistimological questions that are being asked of you, is a symptom of the psychological problem.

 

No ... I do not receive any grant money of any kind at present.

I also asked whether you have any vested interest in either the physics community or more general science community. Looking at your profile, you have a PhD in mathematics and are currently looking for positions. That's a vested interest.

[ajb]

That's the problem. The fact that you cannot escape from your bounded views to address the epistimological questions that are being asked of you, is a symptom of the psychological problem.

I did not recognise any clear questioning on the limitations of science.

I also asked whether you have any vested interest in either the physics community or more general science community.

No, you asked quite specifically about income.

[rah]

it must agree with established physics today

This is not true. That you maintain it is irrational.

 

 

I did not recognise any clear questioning on the limitations of science.

Again, that lack of recognition is a symptom.

 

 

I also asked whether you have any vested interest in either the physics community.

No ...

 

 

Do you have any vested interests in either of these communities?

[ajb]

This is not true. That you maintain it is irrational.

I think you have simply not understood what we mean by "agree with established physics today". I have tried to explain this, with examples. It is very subtle I agree.

Again, that lack of recognition is a symptom.

We have all tried to be polite here and in my opinion very accommodating. Your posts now are starting to become offensive.

 

The limitations of science are separate from the notion of "good theories" and how we should compare theories against each other and nature. It may be interesting to here your views the limitations of science, so feel free to start a new thread. I am sure others will contribute.

 

[rah]

I think you have simply not understood what we mean by "agree with established physics today".

I understand. I think you are not conscious of the fact that there is no way to determine what percentage of the behaviours of nature have been observed through experimentation.

 

 

We must ask rah, what is your key objection to learning what is established first?

I don't have any objection to learning what is established first. You're assuming that because I questioned your statement it means I have some differing opinion. This is not a given. As noted, my goal was to understand why you were presenting your view, a view I saw as patently steeped in scientism. My goal was not to express a disagreement with teaching.

 

That said, unlike yourself, I acknowledge the limitations of science. I also have an awareness that learning about any particular subject changes your perception of the world, in a very real neurological sense. Becoming inducted into a particular way of thinking can make it so that your brain literally cannot see evidence that contradicts what has been learned (see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a discussion of this phenomenon.)

 

With that in mind, I can see that a person who has the intelligence and rationality to independently develop a new, physical theory of nature that surpasses and even contradicts existing theory, could have such a development stopped through the limitations imposed by induction in established theory. I am not foolish enough to assume that present science enables any kind of assessment how much more of nature there is to be revealed.

 

I would not like to guess whether the future lies in a refinement of established theory or a new paradigm originating from a genius who was never inducted into established theory. However, I am not as presumptuous as to discount either possibility.

 

 

And for the record, it is rah, BSc. (Hons), MSc. I would bother trying to add "PhD" to that list if I didn't know that the prevailaing mode of thought within academia is the same kind of obstinate narrow-mindedness that's been displayed by ajb.

Edited December 19, 2012 by rah

[ajb]

..kind of obstinate narrow-mindedness that's been displayed by ajb.

Sorry rah, I no longer wish to discuss anything with you.

[swansont]

I would bother trying to add "PhD" to that list if I didn't know that the prevailaing mode of thought within academia is the same kind of obstinate narrow-mindedness that's been displayed by ajb.

 

!

Moderator Note

OK, that's enough. The borderline trolling and obtuseness already had you on the mod radar, but this definitely crosses a line. It seems that all of the mods around the last few days are all participants in the thread, which is the only reason you've escaped any official sanction. Until now.

[rah]

this definitely crosses a line

He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster.

Alas

[mooeypoo]

Well, this explains why you refrained from actually debating anyone, and came to this forum with a seemingly clear agenda, doesn't it?

[Pantaz]

Let me see if I can simplify this, from the perspective of someone with no formal scientific education.

1. Fred, using Newtonian physics, calculates the impact force of an apple striking the ground after falling from a tree.
2. Jack measures various parameters of an actual apple, falling from an actual tree. He records the results from dozens of apples.
3. Lisa compares Fred's math with Jack's measurements. The data sets match within acceptable margins of error. (For example, calibration factors within the measurement instrumentation; wind causing some of the apples to fall in a slightly different trajectory.)

Conclusion: The theory behind Newton's laws, for the purposes of apples falling from trees here on Earth, is demonstrated to be valid.

For an alternate hypothesis/theory to be accepted, it must also be able to mathematically predict similar results for those same apples falling from those same trees. If the new hypothesis can not correctly make these predictions, then how can you trust it to be accurate about anything else?

[rah]

the same kind of obstinate narrow-mindedness that's been displayed by ajb.

 

I apologise for writing this.

[swansont]

Let me see if I can simplify this, from the perspective of someone with no formal scientific education.

1. Fred, using Newtonian physics, calculates the impact force of an apple striking the ground after falling from a tree.
2. Jack measures various parameters of an actual apple, falling from an actual tree. He records the results from dozens of apples.
3. Lisa compares Fred's math with Jack's measurements. The data sets match within acceptable margins of error. (For example, calibration factors within the measurement instrumentation; wind causing some of the apples to fall in a slightly different trajectory.)

Conclusion: The theory behind Newton's laws, for the purposes of apples falling from trees here on Earth, is demonstrated to be valid.

 

For an alternate hypothesis/theory to be accepted, it must also be able to mathematically predict similar results for those same apples falling from those same trees. If the new hypothesis can not correctly make these predictions, then how can you trust it to be accurate about anything else?

 

 

The problem is that rah is further proposing that you can have a new theory that contradicts the accepted one — the one that accurately predicts the time — and can yet could itself be considered valid. So it doesn't accurately predict the time (it contradicts accepted science) and it's valid, and somehow this isn't a logical inconsistency. Which is why some of us have been figuratively scratching our heads for many posts.

[newts]

The evidence shows that if people do not learn existing theories first, then they usually come up with meaningless rubbish which bears no relation to the real universe. However physicists who first studied existing theories before making their own contributions, like Higgs, Hawking, Gell-Mann and Witten, have also come up with nothing but meaningless nonsense which bears no relation to the real universe.

Unless one has a mind like Newton, or spends one’s life doing experiments, it is highly unlikely that one would discover anything useful. So for most people the best way to contribute to the development of physics, is to continually remind each other that much of recent theoretical physics has no proper experimental backing, and is therefore likely to be wrong. Unfortunately humans are narrow-minded religious creatures, who are unable to do this as they are fully convinced that the standard model is the one true faith.

Anyway Happy Christmas to everybody, and hopefully Santa will leave each of you an open-mind in your stocking.