Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics

[ACG52]

The probability of an apple falling down in stead of up is by far greater than the probability of a mass-less particle existing as opposed to it having mass. Probabilities are probabilities and can thus be compared.

 

But you don't know any probabilities. Your 'far greater' was pulled out of wherever you pull baseless assertions.

[kristalris]

 

But you don't know any probabilities. Your 'far greater' was pulled out of wherever you pull baseless assertions.

Please read the thread before posting: #20

 

Quote of what I stated and asked Swansont: "..... That is deterministic. Such as: "photons are mass-less" is a deterministic statement. Black and white. How sure are you of the fact that photons are mass-less? As sure as that the apple will fall out of the tree downwards? Less sure?"

 

I'm intrigued, have you considered reading about what is involved in modern science or what terms such as theory mean in the context of physics?

Yes, and I have read Wikipedia on it. Yet it as stated doesn't address the problem of funding correctly. So I use a stipulative definition. Do you know what that means?

 

 

A definition I like:

Science is the formulation of mathematical models of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe.

Okay, do I state anything different to that definition? (I.e. you don't only put mathematics into mathematics. Observations and assumptions go into the mathematics as garbage or non garbage. You all blatantly deny this.)

 

 

It's also probably worth pointing out that string theory is a mathematical theory, not a theory as considered by most physicists, that would require a substantial body of evidence.

This thread is not about string theory. That string theory physicists don't hope to prove their theory by a substantial body of evidence is new to me.

[swansont]

You are taking it outside the argument on the definition of a law. Given proof of string theory (whether that is ever going to happen or not is thus irrelevant, it's a given) will that then provide a new law? I say yes, you say no. You're wrong then. Me being obsessed with anything is irrelevant.

 

I'm wrong? How can I possibly be wrong if it's still an undecided issue.

 

That depends on the applied standard of proof. But it was stated as a conviction to counter your statement that no new law has come along in a hundred years. If you don't follow correct procedure, which hasn't been done then that remark of yours doesn't prove anything either, on the same standard of proof. Come to think of it your remark was irrelevant to the issue. If a theory is proven you get a law. Period. That was the issue.

 

Well, then, QM and relativity are proven to the extent you can prove a scientific theory. Where are the laws?

 

This is again a fallacy of yours. You simply dodge the issue. The probability of an apple falling down in stead of up is by far greater than the probability of a mass-less particle existing as opposed to it having mass. Probabilities are probabilities and can thus be compared. What this demonstrates is that truths are only valid within an assumed framework of assumptions. You act as if you don't understand this.

 

My "dodge" was to merely point out that you've rigged the question so far as to make it a meaningless comparison. "Things fall down" is such a vague prediction that it would represent the weakest of theories. Yet you want to compare it to a very specific and precise prediction made by another theory.

 

I bet that someone will win the superbowl (an upcoming sporting event). If I'm wrong, you pay me money. Do you want to make that wager?

 

 

 

That you can correctly take a photon to be absolutely mass-less in a great many cases doesn't prove it is correct to assume it can always be taken as such or be taken as such when addressing a problem concerning TOE. In that larger context it is extremely improbable that it is true. It is the same as one can take the world to be flat when making a paper city map also being correct even though the world is a sphere.

 

What that again shows is that you have to check your assumptions prior to using the mathematics on any topic concerning TOE. Period.

 

Why do I get the feeling that by "correct scientific procedure" (from the thread's title) you actually mean "that procedure which gives a result that is agreeable to me"?

[kristalris]

 

I'm wrong? How can I possibly be wrong if it's still an undecided issue.

Yes, it's wrong to state things that are outside the issue on my stipulative definition of a law as if they can decide this undecided issue.

 

 

Well, then, QM and relativity are proven to the extent you can prove a scientific theory. Where are the laws?

In my stipulative definition every most succinct (mathematical ) formulation it holds that is part of that proven theory from which you can derive the entire theory.

Which they are is your problem as a physicist. Not mine as a taxpayer. So within (maybe disputed) limits I don't contest the correctness of QM, SR, GR or FT. Within those limits you can take a scientifically valid position based on QM to be consistent with the laws of Nature. Thus you can state that anyone who violates those laws within set limits to be in violation of current science. On a question on TOE however you are immediately outside set limits in which QM, SR, GR or FT can be held as (containing) the appropriate laws. Like the flight manual of Yeager in his Sabre, they become more or less vague and subject to being rewritten.

 

If you do that differently you crash, in a test-flight as in physics in getting the question resolved in a timely fashion.

 

 

My "dodge" was to merely point out that you've rigged the question so far as to make it a meaningless comparison. "Things fall down" is such a vague prediction that it would represent the weakest of theories. Yet you want to compare it to a very specific and precise prediction made by another theory.

It was rigged in such a way that it was the simplest way to prove my point. The point not being meaningless. Whether or not the theory as you call it or conforming to the law of Nature as I would call it, is weak as you call it, or extremely strong yet of a very limited scope, as I would call it, is thus immaterial. You are unnecessarily complicating a simple issue. In science you must try to simplify things.

 

Apart from that the very specific and precise prediction is not contested by me - within limits - yet you persist to state that it is - limitless - as being correct when talking on a question of TOE. On that question it has yet to prove itself. Which is as I put forward extremely improbable because it is believing in a blatant contradiction.

That you observe these contradictions doesn't prove that magic exists. It shows that you physicists haven't figured out what illusion Mother Nature is pulling off.

 

I bet that someone will win the superbowl (an upcoming sporting event). If I'm wrong, you pay me money. Do you want to make that wager?

No, but I will wager that it is far more probable that apples fall down out of trees than the probability that photons are actually mass-less and that it will ultimately be proven that the falling apples are true and the mass-less photons are untrue. If physics finally gets out of its whopping confirmation bias and starts to try and disprove GR, QM, SR and FT as physics is supposed to do in the context of the search for TOE, we might even get to a TOE within a short time.

 

Why do I get the feeling that by "correct scientific procedure" (from the thread's title) you actually mean "that procedure which gives a result that is agreeable to me"?

Your feeling is wrong then. I want to falsify everything and you want me to - confirm! - to you that GR, SR, QM and FT are absolutely or nearly so correct in every limitless context. BTW that might be. The probability that that is so I estimate at less than 1 in a trillion to the trillionth. Why? Because they have contradictions. It's even a priori clear it simply can't all be absolutely or even nearly so correct. Quite the opposite is true. We've known that for a very long time even since the conception of GR etc..

 

And the fun thing is you again ignore even the necessity of doing the hypothetical Yo Yo test I gave, even if my given criteria - which you haven't opposed - have been met. You don't even want to contemplate to falsify anything other than well researched fringe issues. Too slow.

Edited January 23, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Yes, it's wrong to state things that are outside the issue on my stipulative definition of a law as if they can decide this undecided issue.

It's not outside the issue you raised, though. In science, using the definitions used by science, theories do not become laws. My prediction that there will not be a law of string theory can only be wrong if there actually is a law of string theory.

In my stipulative definition every most succinct (mathematical ) formulation it holds that is part of that proven theory from which you can derive the entire theory.

Which they are is your problem as a physicist. Not mine as a taxpayer. So within (maybe disputed) limits I don't contest the correctness of QM, SR, GR or FT. Within those limits you can take a scientifically valid position based on QM to be consistent with the laws of Nature. Thus you can state that anyone who violates those laws within set limits to be in violation of current science. On a question on TOE however you are immediately outside set limits in which QM, SR, GR or FT can be held as (containing) the appropriate laws. Like the flight manual of Yeager in his Sabre, they become more or less vague and subject to being rewritten.

 

If you do that differently you crash, in a test-flight as in physics in getting the question resolved in a timely fashion.

The issue under discussion is not about developing a TOE. It's whether theories become laws.

It was rigged in such a way that it was the simplest way to prove my point. The point not being meaningless. Whether or not the theory as you call it or conforming to the law of Nature as I would call it, is weak as you call it, or extremely strong yet of a very limited scope, as I would call it, is thus immaterial. You are unnecessarily complicating a simple issue. In science you must try to simplify things.

It was rigged to give the answer you wanted. Not to actually investigate the question at hand.

Apart from that the very specific and precise prediction is not contested by me - within limits - yet you persist to state that it is - limitless - as being correct when talking on a question of TOE. On that question it has yet to prove itself. Which is as I put forward extremely improbable because it is believing in a blatant contradiction.

That you observe these contradictions doesn't prove that magic exists. It shows that you physicists haven't figured out what illusion Mother Nature is pulling off.

I guess this answers the question about whether there is an underlying agenda.

No, but I will wager that it is far more probable that apples fall down out of trees than the probability that photons are actually mass-less and that it will ultimately be proven that the falling apples are true and the mass-less photons are untrue.

So the analogy would seem to be lost on you. You won't take the one-sided bet, but expect me to.

If physics finally gets out of its whopping confirmation bias and starts to try and disprove GR, QM, SR and FT as physics is supposed to do in the context of the search for TOE, we might even get to a TOE within a short time.

Physicists attempt to disprove these theories all the time. They have this annoying habit of being upheld, though, and if you want to write it off as confirmation bias you're going to have to get a lot more specific.

Your feeling is wrong then. I want to falsify everything and you want me to - confirm! - to you that GR, SR, QM and FT are absolutely or nearly so correct in every limitless context. BTW that might be. The probability that that is so I estimate at less than 1 in a trillion to the trillionth. Why? Because they have contradictions. It's even a priori clear it simply can't all be absolutely or even nearly so correct. Quite the opposite is true. We've known that for a very long time even since the conception of GR etc..

Yes, there is e.g. the fact that GR and QM don't converge. But why is that an issue? Newton's LAW of gravitation fails and is supplanted by GR. Ohm's LAW fails for situations where QM effects come into play. There are always limit of applicability.

And the fun thing is you again ignore even the necessity of doing the hypothetical Yo Yo test I gave, even if my given criteria - which you haven't opposed - have been met. You don't even want to contemplate to falsify anything other than well researched fringe issues. Too slow.

Um, WTF? I have been discussing your claim that "If a theory is proven you get a law. Period." Nothing about a yo-yo test.

 

In your OP you said

 

If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics.

I (tentatively) agree with the sentiment that broad acceptance of an equation might permit the naming of a law — we could call E=mc^2 (or, more correctly, the non-rest version of the equation, since this one often gets misapplied) the law of mass-energy or some such thing, but the fact remains that it is only one part of the theory of special relativity. A subset. Special relativity encompasses several equations, some of which might be termed laws under this definition (laws of time dilation and length contraction, for example. The law of constant space-time interval) and also many concepts. That reality is contrary to the claim that a theory becomes a law. It just doesn't work that way.

[Klaynos]

Yes, and I have read Wikipedia on it. Yet it as stated doesn't address the problem of funding correctly. So I use a stipulative definition. Do you know what that means?

Well that's a start. Yes I do know what it means it just seems that you are arguing for something that science doesn't and cannot aim for.

 

Theories, and laws are never proved in physics, only observations made to show if they are valid in given conditions. We know for example that Newtonian mechanics fails in certain ranges, it is not proved to be true, only a good approximations in a certain regime.

Okay, do I state anything different to that definition? (I.e. you don't only put mathematics into mathematics. Observations and assumptions go into the mathematics as garbage or non garbage. You all blatantly deny this.)

I'm sorry I don't follow you here, the maths is used to make numerical falsifiable predictions. Observations are the measurements to show if the predictions are within each others error bounds.

This thread is not about string theory. That string theory physicists don't hope to prove their theory by a substantial body of evidence is new to me.

They would like to devise experiments that could be used to test it and then test it, it is not a physics theory though, yet if it ever will be, you seemed to mention it several times so I thought a clarification may be useful.

[kristalris]

Well that's a start. Yes I do know what it means it just seems that you are arguing for something that science doesn't and cannot aim for.

Science should be aiming at finding the truth on everything in order to put it into laws that per definition should be as concise as possible.

 

Theories, and laws are never proved in physics, only observations made to show if they are valid in given conditions. We know for example that Newtonian mechanics fails in certain ranges, it is not proved to be true, only a good approximations in a certain regime.

I'm sorry I don't follow you here, the maths is used to make numerical falsifiable predictions. Observations are the measurements to show if the predictions are within each others error bounds.

We are in fact saying the same thing, yet I define it differently with a reason. I'll go into this further in my reaction to Swansont.

 

They would like to devise experiments that could be used to test it and then test it, it is not a physics theory though, yet if it ever will be, you seemed to mention it several times so I thought a clarification may be useful.

My definition of a theory is different from yours (as is my definition of a Law.) Both can be used side by side depending on the context. If you are however talking research and organizing the funding thereof you must use the way I propose because the one physics currently uses is only correct on production questions. And thus incorrect on research questions because it slows that process down to much. Research is about tacking risks. I'll go into this further in my reaction to Swansont.

[hypervalent_iodine]

If mass of photon is not absolute 0, there is no Dark Matter and Dark Energy.. etc

 

!

Moderator Note

Przemyslaw Gruchala,

 

This thread is not the place to air your speculations. Please stick to the OP and do not hijack this or any other thread in the future.

 

Also, this isn't the first time you've been warned about this. I suggest you start paying attention to mod notes and have a read of the forum rules.

[kristalris]

swansont, on 24 Jan 2013 - 00:13, said:

 

It's not outside the issue you raised, though. In science, using the definitions used by science, theories do not become laws. My prediction that there will not be a law of string theory can only be wrong if there actually is a law of string theory.

 

The issue under discussion is not about developing a TOE. It's whether theories become laws.

The discussion is about proper scientific procedure especially in physics. The reason the thread exists is that there is a problem there. On the agenda of science stands TOE (with Hubble) etc. for physics and for instance the cure for all diseases in medicine; which might be out of reach so cure for cancer, viruses etc.. BTW finding TOE would IMO also contribute greatly in solving these issues in medicine (and probably create new problems). Hence the need to get on with it. The longer it takes the more preventable death's due to cancer etc.. I.e. we are in a hurry. Like Yeager was in his Sabre. In stead of trying to find the problem by staying at trying to find the needle in the haystack, you don't wait if there is a possibility of quick and dirty testing. You test test TEST get it wrong by trial and error and merrily figure out a way to test again.

 

That needs funding and correct organizing thereof. That needs correct definitions in order to ascertain what to fund. Knowledge slowly rises. So you need definitions that slowly grow with the probability of being correct they are shown to have by getting the appropriate sticker bestowed and hence claim to funding.

 

swansont, on 24 Jan 2013 - 00:13, said:

 

It was rigged to give the answer you wanted. Not to actually investigate the question at hand.

 

I guess this answers the question about whether there is an underlying agenda.

 

So the analogy would seem to be lost on you. You won't take the one-sided bet, but expect me to.

It was rigged that it answered the question on the above stated agenda. Which it did. You can fund a apple falling from the tree idea I.e. the Yo Yo test as a metaphor thereof, a cheap quick and dirty test that wouldn't get further then answering the question whether the apple falls up or down. Great possible consequences for little cost or effort. As opposed to -ONLY!- very elaborate cost effort and funding towards finding the limits of where photons are to be shown to have mass, if such limits exist and can indeed be reached. I.e. fund both.

 

Nice to see that you now agree that the bet was one sided. Yet my bet I gave you was fair. Yours unfair for only if the games would have been called of would I win. You on the other hand started off by stating that mass-less photons are sure to be true. But I guess we agree now.

 

Within the limits the flight manual of Yeager is granite but it becomes clay with hard bits when a test situation arises. Within the limits of current science I agree the knowledge to take photons as being mass-less is harder than granite: it's diamond. however outside the yet to be discovered limits it's not hard at all.

 

Part of science working the production method and correctly (still) claiming by far the most funding can carry on taking this diamond knowledge, then to be seen as clay yet as hypothesis absolutely true in the search for TOE. However, that may absolutely not be brought to the point that all funding is even tried to be blocked of research taking photons to have mass as absolutely true fact in a testable hypothesis. On questions on TOE. Or absolute time, or speeds > c for that matter.

swansont, on 24 Jan 2013 - 00:13, said:

 

Physicists attempt to disprove these theories all the time. They have this annoying habit of being upheld, though, and if you want to write it off as confirmation bias you're going to have to get a lot more specific.

 

Yes, there is e.g. the fact that GR and QM don't converge. But why is that an issue? Newton's LAW of gravitation fails and is supplanted by GR. Ohm's LAW fails for situations where QM effects come into play. There are always limit of applicability.

 

Um, WTF? I have been discussing your claim that "If a theory is proven you get a law. Period." Nothing about a yo-yo test.

 

In your OP you said

 

 

I (tentatively) agree with the sentiment that broad acceptance of an equation might permit the naming of a law — we could call E=mc^2 (or, more correctly, the non-rest version of the equation, since this one often gets misapplied) the law of mass-energy or some such thing, but the fact remains that it is only one part of the theory of special relativity. A subset. Special relativity encompasses several equations, some of which might be termed laws under this definition (laws of time dilation and length contraction, for example. The law of constant space-time interval) and also many concepts. That reality is contrary to the claim that a theory becomes a law. It just doesn't work that way.

I agree that it at the moment just doesn't work that way, but it should on questions of funding research.

 

In science a law can be taken to be absolutely true within known or even unknown but always assumed limits. In other words in production you take laws of science absolutely true WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. Problem is production usually forgets the latter. For instance DSM branding nearly everybody as being mad is an example of that, being to rigidly applied as being the law on diagnostics of mental disorders in an area where you know that it a priori can't be more than rules of thumb.

 

The worst that can happen to thus calling certain formula's a law of physics, is that later on you will have to call it an old law of physics. That BTW isn't the case for the laws of Newton. They are very much still current within their limits. A law for instance containing time deletion might become an old law when a new law comes along maybe with not only a broader field of applicability and more precise predictions within the same field, but also with a much simpler form of mathematics altogether. Getting the same or better results thus on a broader field as well. But then still the old law will be correct within its limits, yet outdated because to complex.

 

Because you don't want to run into the situation of having to change the law all the time, you need broad acceptance that it indeed will stand the test of time, within its (BTW broad and deep enough to warrant the hefty title) limits.

 

A theory then is something yet to become a law (at least to then contain them). Yet a theory should already be consistent with all observations of science and address all problems and in principle have practically testable hypothesis. The latter of course then warrants the most funding. Yet you will still have to address the probabilities of conflicting theories.

 

You will still have use of the word in theory as depicting the opposite of in practice. I see no problems with that context.

 

Now the problem is that physicists that are highly conscientious, work hard and accurately and have great knowledge of the present status quo, and write thick scientific books with a lot of footnotes and being most cited, are usually also the ones that are good at networking and communicating with the usually conscientious people in government in charge of funding. These physicists become the ones that have to inherently guess what to best fund. Yet not being Natures best guessers.

 

The creative physicists that aren't that interested in networking and fundraising lose out. Yet they understand and have the talent in the art of guessing, which idea,s concepts and theories should receive funding. Now I propose to get that better organized.

 

I'm convinced if you let the creative physicists decide what to fund, the science of physics will leap ahead by trial and a lot of error as well.

 

Then it also will reside that people like Higgs are sick to the bone in fear of showing their idea, and might even chose not to. For bullies like Steven Hawking calling him an idiot or what was it. Even if Higgs is to be proven wrong, that will be with hindsight. If the creative get funding, these problems will reside more. And produce better idea's to develop and test, test TEST. That is science!

Edited January 24, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Two things: 1) it looks like you want to redefine law and theory to suit you, which means renaming all past laws and theories. Because, as I pointed out, laws are (at best) subsets of theories. I'm not going to argue this anymore, because it's a pipe dream on your part, with little chance of adoption, and I don't see the point of a "what if" discussion of an alternate universe in which this is true.

 

2) The immediate goal of scientists in general and physicists in particular is not a TOE. Very few people are working on such a thing, in part for the same reason that there aren't a large number of groups working on any identical project — such massively parallel efforts would be a waste of time and money. It seems like this grail (or windmill) quest is the real subject of your thread, and not a more general discussion of "correct scientific procedure". The system isn't living up to your individual (and, IMO, naive and unreasonable) expectation of it. Got it.

[kristalris]

Two things: 1) it looks like you want to redefine law and theory to suit you, which means renaming all past laws and theories. Because, as I pointed out, laws are (at best) subsets of theories. I'm not going to argue this anymore, because it's a pipe dream on your part, with little chance of adoption, and I don't see the point of a "what if" discussion of an alternate universe in which this is true.

 

2) The immediate goal of scientists in general and physicists in particular is not a TOE. Very few people are working on such a thing, in part for the same reason that there aren't a large number of groups working on any identical project — such massively parallel efforts would be a waste of time and money. It seems like this grail (or windmill) quest is the real subject of your thread, and not a more general discussion of "correct scientific procedure". The system isn't living up to your individual (and, IMO, naive and unreasonable) expectation of it. Got it.

Oh I got "it" even before my OP believe it or not.

 

Thing is, what you are in fact saying is - if I read between the lines is - that my way of defining correct scientific procedure though reasonable and even better it may be, it is unreasonable to believe that it is going to be adopted. I agree. Yet it is still worthwhile to have at least the idea spread that the current way of defining it is counter productive and that there is a better way.

 

The reason to do that is because correct scientific procedure also means getting the creative physicists organized in a way that they become in charge of an important part of funding. If that happens it will be a game changer. To better win the battle for the need of organizing that, the need to reasonably show the definition problem exists, which you in fact in so many words agree on, is important.

 

And, as soon as the naughty young dogs by heart become in charge of part of the cookies not only the game but also as a logical byproduct you will see the definitions change. But indeed only then. And then it isn't even that important anymore.

 

Now the chance of actually getting the creative physicists in charge of part of the cookies is something taxpayers can indeed influence. Especially if politics gets the message that you then get more bang for the buck.

 

The question whether it's worthwhile to try and immediately jump for TOE could then better be left for them to decide, wouldn't you agree?. I predict that they indeed will organize that jump, and be the first to actually succeed in doing so and in getting there. The reason you don't see anyone trying it at the moment is probably because the personal risk is to great to even propose that. It is way beyond the imagination of the ones in charge of funding to even contemplate that. Hence it probably isn't. And that's wrong.

[Klaynos]

How are you defining TOE?

[swansont]

Thing is, what you are in fact saying is - if I read between the lines is - that my way of defining correct scientific procedure though reasonable and even better it may be, it is unreasonable to believe that it is going to be adopted. I agree. Yet it is still worthwhile to have at least the idea spread that the current way of defining it is counter productive and that there is a better way.

 

I can't figure how you came to the conclusion that I thought it was reasonable. It's an issue of semantics with, IMO, negligible impact on "scientific procedure".

[ACG52]

Thing is, what you are in fact saying is - if I read between the lines is - that my way of defining correct scientific procedure though reasonable and even better it may be

 

No one is saying your definitions are correct or reasonable. You seem to delight in redefining words and then launching into semanticly twisted posts.

 

It would help your case if you actually knew anything about science and scientific research. Instead, this is turning into the same kind of word salad you served over on Physforum.

[Phi for All]

And what is in your opinion wrong with word salad at a concept level?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

 

Word salad is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases",[1] most often used to describe a symptom of a mental disorder. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused.

Especially at concept level, if you're being overly wordy and confusing it's not going to help you present your ideas in a meaningful way. Also, the more words you use in your explanation, the more chances you have of making mistakes.

[Klaynos]

I'd say the start of the Wp article on toe is a bit too general, it gets better, saying that a toe is a unification theory of electo-weak-strong and gravity, nothing more.

[kristalris]

I can't figure how you came to the conclusion that I thought it was reasonable. It's an issue of semantics with, IMO, negligible impact on "scientific procedure".

Now trying to get politicians to see that getting the creative physicists in charge of a large part of the funding, if that happens will not have a negligible impact on science.

 

It is unfair and incorrect to say what we discussed is only semantics. It's not. E = mc2 (in the longer version) should be defined as a law. You stated to tend to agree with that. If you see that then it has ramifications. You get a concept level at the other side as well and the need to find a system of funding that. This is reasoning politicians and taxpayers will understand. I.e. that the ones stating at the moment to know it all and are in charge of funding in fact don't. Hence the need to get the creative physicists to decide what to fund. The latter fact I've not seen you contest. Neither have you contested the fact that that would be a game changer.

 

Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc etc. were all highly creative minds. Without a doubt minds like these are lingering within the population of physicists. Yet not in a position to dare to take risks and on larger issues and show that they can hack it as well. But they can show it at smaller issues that prove who are the creative ones and who isn't. You can bet your shiny boots that getting people of this caliber to do the guesswork it will quickly have a major impact on science.

 

 

 

No one is saying your definitions are correct or reasonable. You seem to delight in redefining words and then launching into semanticly twisted posts.

 

It would help your case if you actually knew anything about science and scientific research. Instead, this is turning into the same kind of word salad you served over on Physforum.

I must have been working on a reaction to this post and forgot to post it, for I can't find it anymore.

 

Anyway, I guess you're Alex then? The one who introduced me to the concept of "word salad". On that topic I will react in my post to Phi.

 

Further more you haven't been reading this thread properly then if you say that nobody is saying my definitions are correct or reasonable.

 

Now you show me where I've semantically twisted anything.

 

I guess I'm not allowed to react on your statement about Physforum. And if I am indeed not, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up. So I'll react when I know that it is allowed.

[swansont]

Now trying to get politicians to see that getting the creative physicists in charge of a large part of the funding, if that happens will not have a negligible impact on science.

 

It is unfair and incorrect to say what we discussed is only semantics. It's not. E = mc2 (in the longer version) should be defined as a law. You stated to tend to agree with that. If you see that then it has ramifications. You get a concept level at the other side as well and the need to find a system of funding that. This is reasoning politicians and taxpayers will understand. I.e. that the ones stating at the moment to know it all and are in charge of funding in fact don't. Hence the need to get the creative physicists to decide what to fund. The latter fact I've not seen you contest. Neither have you contested the fact that that would be a game changer.

 

But E=mc^2 isn't the entirety of relativity, and the equation isn't (as you claimed) called a theory. My objection to that is that you have misrepresented the current lay of the land, and the changes you propose are untenable and also meaningless. Instead of the theory of relativity, now we have the law of relativity. What would that law be? Mass-energy? Length contraction? Time dilation? Space-time interval invariance?

 

I haven't contested claims about funding. I haven't agreed, either. I haven't made any comment whatsoever about it. Silence is not assent.

[kristalris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Especially at concept level, if you're being overly wordy and confusing it's not going to help you present your ideas in a meaningful way. Also, the more words you use in your explanation, the more chances you have of making mistakes.

Thanks for the link and your criticism

 

The Wikipedia page should get added another used meaning of word salad, for it only has it's literal meaning. As used quite frequently by people who can do math's in forums like this one, as a derogatory remark implying that an argument is made on a topic that requires mathematics in their opinion. However concise, or correctly worded or whatever.

 

You can then also add the way I used it as a reappropriation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation

 

Because I'm Dutch I don't feel obliged to further a Wikipedia page on English language.

 

Now I might get the criticism (not by you BTW) that I'm doing semantics again. I.e. imply or state that someone uses semantics to produce a fallacious argument. Just stating that without showing that is just that: fallacious.

 

This use of word salad (as a reappropriation: i.e.meaning: "correctly worded argumentation") in the concept faze is indeed at the heart of the problem, in science in general and physics especially. It is at the heart of a circular argument (in general and not by you BTW) and thus a fallacy. In short hand then:

 

Concept level physics => only words no math's = word salad = wrong => words and math's = right.

 

Concept level physics = what to put into mathematics faze => words and mathematics = wrong => only words is right.

 

Now your critique on the length of the worded posts is correct when trying to communicate with highly conscientious people who usually have a directive communication style. I.e. short and concise.

 

Now here we see the other circular argument arise (not by you BTW but in general):

 

Concept level in physics => most be concise and only based on data => must have mathematics (= wrong shown already) => most have short wording fitting everything we know perfectly so should be a theory already (=> some conclude as is done in the definition physics doesn't and should't have a concept faze.)

 

Concept faze in physics => in part assumptions in words taken as fact to put in mathematics on missing data in part to get new data.

 

Concise => needs data

 

Concept faze (cf) => per definition misses data => can't be / not allowed to be more concise then data allows => demanding to only be concise in the concept faze is circular => cf = guess work => creativity => science psychology => open mindedness (+ knowledge of physics + experience in physics) = wisdom in physics => open minded physicists in concept faze and to decide funding thereof.

 

Psychology btw states in so many words that trying to explain the concept of creativity to a totally non creative persons is like trying to explain the colour red to the permanently blind. Only via authority can that succeed.

[Bignose]

It is unfair and incorrect to say what we discussed is only semantics. It's not. E = mc2 (in the longer version) should be defined as a law.

Why does it really matter what it is called? It's not like there are police running around enforcing relativity...

 

Two things will always happen: 1) Non-scientists will always apply the colloquial definitions of the words to the terms. E.g. the significant number of people who can be swayed with the phrase "well, it IS only a theory". 2) Scientists will understand how strong or weak the idea is because of the evidence supporting it, not because of some foible of nomenclature.

 

Really, I don't think it matters if they are called "The Laws of Thermodynamics", "The Good Ideas of Thermodynamics", or "The Banana Slugs of Thermodynamics". And I also think that Nature doesn't care either. Energy will continue to be conserved no matter what we call them.

[kristalris]

Why does it really matter what it is called? It's not like there are police running around enforcing relativity...

 

Two things will always happen: 1) Non-scientists will always apply the colloquial definitions of the words to the terms. E.g. the significant number of people who can be swayed with the phrase "well, it IS only a theory". 2) Scientists will understand how strong or weak the idea is because of the evidence supporting it, not because of some foible of nomenclature.

 

Really, I don't think it matters if they are called "The Laws of Thermodynamics", "The Good Ideas of Thermodynamics", or "The Banana Slugs of Thermodynamics". And I also think that Nature doesn't care either. Energy will continue to be conserved no matter what we call them.

It matters what it is called because it hits the funding and thus the speed at which problems are solved.

 

Actually come to think of it it is actually quite hilarious. The strongest laws ever devised / discovered by man (in casu by physicists for crying out loud) in practical Nature are not defined by physicists as such.

 

Well it does prove that physicists are not quite aware about the broader context in which they are trying to further science. I.e the knowledge about history, human behavior (physicists are probably human, anyway I think they are) and language such as word salad logic and the funding and the way that leads to behavior of physicists flaming and bullying (not in this site as such) other physicists/ scientists (Hubble) & laymen, and the behavior of taxpayers being voters and politicians that mostly provide that funding. Also the ignorance about evidence and proof concerning issues where it is clear that insufficient data are available yet decisions are being and should be made. (I.e. of the soft statistics of probabilistic reasoning)

 

And again that physicists obviously have problems in getting their word salad definitions in order dark matter and dark energy, both central problems are incorrectly defined. Physicists should be bloody ashamed of themselves! (And exceedingly proud as well BTW)

Edited January 25, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

It matters what it is called because it hits the funding and thus the speed at which problems are solved.

 

Actually come to think of it it is actually quite hilarious. The strongest laws ever devised / discovered by man are not defined as such by physicists as such.

 

 

By your definition of a law, it is "without a possible way to further investigate". So there is no reason to further fund research related to something that has been deemed a law — there is, by definition, no further research to be done. Which leaves us with two possibilities: either this is a really bad idea for funding communication, since funding would disappear, or it's a really bad definition, since nothing would be defined as a law — in reality, there's always more testing you can do.

 

Well it does prove that physicists are not quite aware about the broader context in which they are trying to further science. I.e the knowledge about history, human behavior (physicists are probably human, anyway I think they are) and language such as word salad logic and the funding and the way that leads to behavior of physicists flaming and bullying (not in this site as such) other physicists/ scientists (Hubble) & laymen, and the behavior of taxpayers being voters and politicians that mostly provide that funding. Also the ignorance about evidence and proof concerning issues where it is clear that insufficient data are available yet decisions are being and should be made.

 

And again that physicists obviously have problems in getting their word salad definitions in order dark matter and dark energy, both central problems are incorrectly defined. Physicists should be bloody ashamed of themselves!

 

I have yet to see any indication that you possess the necessary mastery of physics to be able to credibly define what the central problems are.

[kristalris]

By your definition of a law, it is "without a possible way to further investigate". So there is no reason to further fund research related to something that has been deemed a law — there is, by definition, no further research to be done. Which leaves us with two possibilities: either this is a really bad idea for funding communication, since funding would disappear, or it's a really bad definition, since nothing would be defined as a law — in reality, there's always more testing you can do.

Of course not. As stated again and again and even acknowledged by you (this is surreal (not really but anyway)) laws are only valid within their known or always assumed LIMITS. The search in science for which funding is needed is to find these limits.

I have yet to see any indication that you possess the necessary mastery of physics to be able to credibly define what the central problems are.

This would only be relevant (in fact it is a fallacy of authority by you) if you explicitly state that DM & DE aren't central problems of physics. Do you state that?

 

And are they in your more than expert opinion correctly defined?

 

BTW aren't you dodging the issue?

[Bignose]

It matters what it is called because it hits the funding and thus the speed at which problems are solved.

Really? Any evidence of this you can share? Some evidence of some problem that got solved faster because of the word choice?

[SamBridge]

Sorry to bud in, but I think what Bignose was saying is more about how data can get manipulated, but even if it is manipulated, there's peer review and more test done to attempt to confirm that data. You do have to put some amount of trust in scientists themselves, there's 3% of climatologists that even say the Earth is getting cooler, and actually they are right, BUT ONLY for specific periods of time, like over a period of every 10 years, the Earth gradually cools down from where it was at before, but then it jumps up, and it keeps jumping up and up to a higher and higher amount, making the AVERAGE temperature increase over 100 years a positive increase.

Edited January 26, 2013 by SamBridge