Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics

[kristalris]

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

 

Now what were we talking about?

Quote

kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said:

Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. EQ This I stated in another thread. Then you said QOUTE:

Cannot disagree more.

EQ

You posed argument concentrated on fraud and conspiracy in science as being irrelevant as far as I recall, to which I agreed .

And you concluded:

THAT'S Science! if I'm correct. Then this thread split off: Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics.

 

Now if I understand you correctly do you now implicitly concede that science / physics has indeed incorrectly defined the fundamental formulas not as laws, yet wish to state that this is just a slight infringement on a formality with no material effect or consequence and thus unimportant?

 

If then Q.E.D.. You all infringe on correct scientific procedure. Procedure being inherently about the formalities.

 

Just to narrow it down, first concede this. Then I will prove what you ask me, okay?

Edited January 26, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

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.

 

But if there is research into them then they would not be laws, by your definition.

 

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?

 

No, I disagree with your logic, and no, I don't.

 

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

 

I do not have a "more than expert" opinion, but I think they are adequately defined. Further, it seems that the people who do have expertise think they are adequately defined. What's missing is anything to buttress your claim that they are not.

 

BTW aren't you dodging the issue?

 

What issue would that be?

[kristalris]

 

But if there is research into them then they would not be laws, by your definition.

Research as to where the limits of the laws are. Within the limits it will always be a law whatever happens. Meaning it can be taken as true within those limits. It might however become an old law. This is simple logic. In science you should use the same scientific method of defining procedures for not running into a interdisciplinary problems.

 

No, I disagree with your logic, and no, I don't.

 

 

I do not have a "more than expert" opinion, but I think they are adequately defined. Further, it seems that the people who do have expertise think they are adequately defined. What's missing is anything to buttress your claim that they are not.

Dark = don't know Matter = we know it is missing matter => that is a contradiction: You can think this to be adequately defined because probably true, yet correct definition would entail that you define what you agree to be a central problem (any problem should be correctly and not merely adequately defined). Say you were the first to have spotted this phenomenon then Dark Swansont would be an apt sticker being absolutely neutral as to what it could be and only describing a problem. To solve problems like these you should keep an open mind and it is then best not to make it more difficult for the brain to deal with incorrect definitions.

 

Again if you want to call it the law of GR or the laws of GR is up to you physicists. Not naming something that is held to be neigh absolutely true within as yet not fully defined limits is incomprehensible. And can and thus will (and has) lead to serious errors in reasoning. When Bignose has reacted I'll prove that to you both. You stated earlier on to be somewhat sympathetic on calling it laws and then you shirked back on that. Stating it to be a side issue. Well then you in fact agree.

 

My expertise is irrelevant on the issue at hand. Being that physicists have problems with correct use of word salad whereas it is of critical importance as it is word salad that decides what is to go into the mathematical formula's. If you do this incorrectly your brain has to constantly correct the mistake. If you don't make such mistakes your brain doesn't have to do that and that enhances the chance that you actually solve the dark problem.

 

In science it is important to have your definitions not only adequately but always correctly defined. Otherwise it is an incorrect scientific procedure. Being the issue, so Q.E.D.

 

What issue would that be?

If you ignore part of what is stated then it tends to be taken as agreeing with it, if you don't explicitly say that you don't want to react. Ignoring is dodging the issue.

[Bignose]

Now what were we talking about?

 

Quote

 

kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said:

 

Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. EQ This I stated in another thread. Then you said QOUTE:

 

Cannot disagree more.

 

EQ

 

You posed argument concentrated on fraud and conspiracy in science as being irrelevant as far as I recall, to which I agreed .

And you concluded:

 

THAT'S Science! if I'm correct. Then this thread split off: Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics.

 

Now if I understand you correctly do you now implicitly concede that science / physics has indeed incorrectly defined the fundamental formulas not as laws, yet wish to state that this is just a slight infringement on a formality with no material effect or consequence and thus unimportant?

 

If then Q.E.D.. You all infringe on correct scientific procedure. Procedure being inherently about the formalities.

 

Just to narrow it down, first concede this. Then I will prove what you ask me, okay?

procedure and word choice aren't really related.

 

procedure:

develop an idea; make prediction based on that idea; gather data to see how closely your prediction agrees; possibly refine idea and repeat

 

word choice is your argument over whether calling something a law or a theory changes how quickly it gets sorted out.

 

I guess my point is that the procedure is the same whether or not your idea is about a law, about a theory, about a hypothesis, about a ponderance, about a speculation, about a assumption, or about a doctrine. The specific word choice doesn't matter in no small part because science is data driven. That is, the law/theory/hypothesis/ponderance/speculation/assumption/doctrine makes a specific prediction, and the experiment shows how closely that prediction agrees with reality. And reality doesn't care a wit what humans named something.

[kristalris]

procedure and word choice aren't really related.

 

procedure:

develop an idea; make prediction based on that idea; gather data to see how closely your prediction agrees; possibly refine idea and repeat

 

word choice is your argument over whether calling something a law or a theory changes how quickly it gets sorted out.

 

I guess my point is that the procedure is the same whether or not your idea is about a law, about a theory, about a hypothesis, about a ponderance, about a speculation, about a assumption, or about a doctrine. The specific word choice doesn't matter in no small part because science is data driven. That is, the law/theory/hypothesis/ponderance/speculation/assumption/doctrine makes a specific prediction, and the experiment shows how closely that prediction agrees with reality. And reality doesn't care a wit what humans named something.

Only in part correct thus wrong. Science is not only data driven it is also missing data driven. Missing data must be filled in via words that are put into the subsequent mathematics. What you are saying is only correct on production questions: those are indeed only data driven. No research needed. Research is inherently always thus also missing data driven and thus guess driven, which is done by words.

 

If a definition can be perfect it must be perfect. Adequate is incorrect i.e. wrong. The definitions at hand can be and thus require perfection. You and Swansont have in fact already conceded that physics hasn't defined these issues perfectly.

 

Now again do you concede that science has formalities on the way you define things or do you indeed think you can formally proceduraly muck around in that field because you assume it to be of negligible consequence?

Edited January 26, 2013 by kristalris

[ACG52]

 

If a definition can be perfect it must be perfect.

In what language?

Again, since you know nothing about physics, you post about semantics.

[Bignose]

Only in part correct thus wrong.

How the heck do you just get to declare this? Was this really posted with a ton of attitude, because that it was I am getting from the post.

 

Compare "I think that what you wrote here is only partially correct, and here's why" with your statement "Only part correct thus wrong." One is a ton more respectful.

 

I've been very respectful to you.

 

-----------------

 

What you've posted there in no way has convinced me that the word choice directly affects how problems get solved. Especially the word choice between theory, law, or hypothesis, etc. What you seem to be saying is that sometimes words are used to express an idea first. Sure, I never disagreed with that. But, like I tell all the people who post in speculations that don't post math -- words are fungible. Words have different meanings to different people. Using only words is merely story telling. It isn't science. Science is the pattern of making specific predictions and comparing them to measurements. Words cannot do that.

 

And because I believe so strongly that science is the comparison of predictions with measurements, I really don't care what name that prediction was given. Look, reality is going to conserve energy, whether or not mankind calls that the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Really Quite Spanking Idea of Thermodynamics, or Bright Idea About Thermodynamics I Had One Day. The prediction is that in the end, energy is neither created nor destroyed. That prediction is compared with reality, no matter what it is called.

 

Again, I ask, do you have any evidence of any situation where a problem has been solved differently because of word choice? I don't know of a single scientist who had an attitude like "oh, that's a law I'm using, that must be really important", or vice versa "it is merely a theory I am using, it doesn't matter". Scientists use the principles that are well supported by evidence, or they try to gather the evidence to better support a principle, or try to find evidence to run counter to a principle they don't like. Whether that principle is termed a law, theory, hypothesis, or anything else, I really don't think it matters.

[kristalris]

How the heck do you just get to declare this? Was this really posted with a ton of attitude, because that it was I am getting from the post.

 

Compare "I think that what you wrote here is only partially correct, and here's why" with your statement "Only part correct thus wrong." One is a ton more respectful.

 

I've been very respectful to you.

 

-----------------

 

What you've posted there in no way has convinced me that the word choice directly affects how problems get solved. Especially the word choice between theory, law, or hypothesis, etc. What you seem to be saying is that sometimes words are used to express an idea first. Sure, I never disagreed with that. But, like I tell all the people who post in speculations that don't post math -- words are fungible. Words have different meanings to different people. Using only words is merely story telling. It isn't science. Science is the pattern of making specific predictions and comparing them to measurements. Words cannot do that.

 

And because I believe so strongly that science is the comparison of predictions with measurements, I really don't care what name that prediction was given. Look, reality is going to conserve energy, whether or not mankind calls that the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Really Quite Spanking Idea of Thermodynamics, or Bright Idea About Thermodynamics I Had One Day. The prediction is that in the end, energy is neither created nor destroyed. That prediction is compared with reality, no matter what it is called.

 

Again, I ask, do you have any evidence of any situation where a problem has been solved differently because of word choice? I don't know of a single scientist who had an attitude like "oh, that's a law I'm using, that must be really important", or vice versa "it is merely a theory I am using, it doesn't matter". Scientists use the principles that are well supported by evidence, or they try to gather the evidence to better support a principle, or try to find evidence to run counter to a principle they don't like. Whether that principle is termed a law, theory, hypothesis, or anything else, I really don't think it matters.

I'm sorry that you think I've been disrespectful to you. I haven't. I posed argument at what you stated.

 

We don't disagree on the matter that science is done by making falsifiable predictions (you keep on only talking about predictions) and gathering data on that.

 

We also agree that language even if used correctly can be seen from the viewpoint of unambitious rigors of mathematics as word salad.

 

However even word salad has standards that must be adhered to. It is not so that if it is only word salad it doesn't matter how you define it. It does.

 

Again before going in to the proof that you want, it is proper to first ascertain and therefore for you to acknowledge the fact that the definitions on scientific issues in physics are not defined in a perfect way even though it is possible to do so. As I've shown and you in fact already implicitly have acknowledged.

 

Again: dark matter and dark energy are defined wrong because it is not defined in a neutral way as to the problem and not already containing a presumed answer. So is GR as if it doesn't contain a law or laws of Nature. It always works and will remain working as such whatever future research will show, so it contains a law or laws. This is a formal procedural point.

 

Formal points (on procedure thus) can be split from the material points i.e. if it is important or not. You can't say ah it could of been defined perfectly in words but it is not important so it is correct. And indeed perfect in words isn't as unambitious as mathematics can be but still. This problem on mathematics can't be solved with mathematics. First the words then the maths.

[Bignose]

Again before going in to the proof that you want, it is proper to first ascertain and therefore for you to acknowledge the fact that the definitions on scientific issues in physics are not defined in a perfect way even though it is possible to do so.

Really? I have to agree with you before you'll back up your statement. I hardly think so. You are making this statement, I am asking you for evidence to support it. Here's the most I will do, if you provide strong enough evidence, then I might be swayed to agree with you. Otherwise, I stand by my disagreement based upon never ever having seen an actual practitioner of science worry about the semantics of the principle they were using.

 

And I don't know why you are picking on dark matter so much. Dark as in not illuminated, as in cannot be seen. Matter is because from what mass we do see, the current models of galaxies don't predict what galaxies are actually doing. But, if we increase the mass in those models, then the predictions are pretty good. Hence the suspicion for matter we can't see, a la dark matter.

 

Not only that, but we actually can detect its presence. They can make maps of it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes

 

Do we have every answer about it? No. But, I don't get why you are so hung up on the word choice.

[swansont]

Research as to where the limits of the laws are. Within the limits it will always be a law whatever happens. Meaning it can be taken as true within those limits. It might however become an old law. This is simple logic. In science you should use the same scientific method of defining procedures for not running into a interdisciplinary problems.

 

You are contradicting the definition you've proposed, and this doesn't address the objection I've made.

 

Also, there is no one scientific method that applies to all research. You can't define a procedure that applies to all research.

 

Dark = don't know Matter = we know it is missing matter => that is a contradiction: You can think this to be adequately defined because probably true, yet correct definition would entail that you define what you agree to be a central problem (any problem should be correctly and not merely adequately defined). Say you were the first to have spotted this phenomenon then Dark Swansont would be an apt sticker being absolutely neutral as to what it could be and only describing a problem. To solve problems like these you should keep an open mind and it is then best not to make it more difficult for the brain to deal with incorrect definitions.

 

If that's your assessment, then I was correct. You really should investigate the issue in some more depth. There's a discrepancy between matter we can see, electromagnetically, and the effects we see, gravitationally. So we can't "see" this, i.e. it's dark, and it's matter.

 

Again if you want to call it the law of GR or the laws of GR is up to you physicists. Not naming something that is held to be neigh absolutely true within as yet not fully defined limits is incomprehensible. And can and thus will (and has) lead to serious errors in reasoning. When Bignose has reacted I'll prove that to you both. You stated earlier on to be somewhat sympathetic on calling it laws and then you shirked back on that. Stating it to be a side issue. Well then you in fact agree.

 

I said I wouldn't mind and that it wouldn't matter if it were a called law, under the current definition. It carries almost no weight, because laws are just equations or simple mathematical relationships that we've found to be true. I have issues with your definition, and I disagree that the semantics have led to serious errors in reasoning — something you have asserted but not backed up with any evidence.

 

My expertise is irrelevant on the issue at hand. Being that physicists have problems with correct use of word salad whereas it is of critical importance as it is word salad that decides what is to go into the mathematical formula's. If you do this incorrectly your brain has to constantly correct the mistake. If you don't make such mistakes your brain doesn't have to do that and that enhances the chance that you actually solve the dark problem.

 

Sure it is. You make claims about how problems are inadequately defined, but if you don't have the requisite knowledge you can't make any kind of valid assessment.

 

In science it is important to have your definitions not only adequately but always correctly defined. Otherwise it is an incorrect scientific procedure. Being the issue, so Q.E.D.

 

Still waiting for you to show that this is true, that things aren't properly defined.

 

If you ignore part of what is stated then it tends to be taken as agreeing with it, if you don't explicitly say that you don't want to react. Ignoring is dodging the issue.

 

On the contrary, my participation is voluntary. You are the one who has made claims, and the burden of proof is on you to back the claims up. That's the price of admission. I, on the other hand, am not making such claims, and have no obligation to argue any particular point. Just the ones I want.

 

Only in part correct thus wrong. Science is not only data driven it is also missing data driven. Missing data must be filled in via words that are put into the subsequent mathematics. What you are saying is only correct on production questions: those are indeed only data driven. No research needed. Research is inherently always thus also missing data driven and thus guess driven, which is done by words.

 

Do you have an example of someone who uses words to fill in for missing data, and how one puts words into the math?

 

If a definition can be perfect it must be perfect. Adequate is incorrect i.e. wrong. The definitions at hand can be and thus require perfection. You and Swansont have in fact already conceded that physics hasn't defined these issues perfectly.

 

Language is imperfect, so this is moot. It's also a reason scientists use math.

 

Now again do you concede that science has formalities on the way you define things or do you indeed think you can formally proceduraly muck around in that field because you assume it to be of negligible consequence?

 

The presence of such formalities is a different issue — who has claimed there aren't any?

[kristalris]

I will answer both Bignose and Swansont's last posts in this post. For I already agreed that I have
to provide the evidence and proof.

Now first of all let’s agree on the probandum:

1. Physics is following incorrect
   scientific procedure by ill / incorrectly defining key issues such as DM.

 

1. This has a significant negative
   impact on the furtherance of science.

Then we have to agree on what standard of proof
is appropriate?

 

To correctly determine this the rule IMO applies: risk = chance x consequence

 

 

Can we agree that solving key issues as quickly as possible is of paramount
consequence? I say it is, thus the chance of a mistake must be made if possible
zero or near zero in order not to run a risk or an as small as possible risk.
So proving that a formal substandard formulation exists of DM already provides
the slightest chance of a negative consequence where a correct alternate has
been provided. (There is BTW a clear misunderstanding as if I’m stating that
dark matter isn’t matter. It is missing i.e. unobserved matter in my opinion. But that is beside the point.
Even if I’m thoroughly convinced that DM is in fact matter, I am on formal
grounds not allowed to make it part of the definition. The definition must be
neutral in that effect, as I already stated. For it could be that a massless
matter less force is causing the perceived missing gravity. According to Krauss
anyway with his something from nothing. I’m convinced that it isn’t but the
definition dark matter already excludes that possibility. And this is also close
to the notion that all matter has mass and that all mass exerts gravity. Which
is also implied in this definition and it doesn’t necessarily have to be so)

If a perfect definition can be reached it
should be because it is not negligible. Dark matter is not a perfect definition
because it holds part of the probable answer in the definition of the problem,
where a perfect definition is possible. This proves point 1.

Now to the question of significant impact: words and math’s.

By the word salad definition dark matter and subsequent word salad you define what the
symbols in the mathematics stand for. For in these symbols only otherwise
meaningless numbers are put and generated. The word salad gives the numbers
meaning and word salad decides what formula’s to use or are to be developed. So correct as possible use of
word salad is essential for preventing a garbage in problem into the
mathematics. (Now you could try and reason that all word salad can be put into
digital mathematics. Yet you are then in fact saying let a computer do it all
and take the human out of the loop. I guess you both don’t imply this. Well
humans think in word salad on issues what to put into the mathematics.)

Now to prove that this is indeed as such not a small but a only significant but even
large problem:

The science of Psychology:

Take a large group of people and show them a lot of pictures of rabbits. Then show
them this picture http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rabbit-DuckIllusion.html and ask them what they see. A great
many will see the rabbit and nothing more. Some creatively intelligent good
observers would also spot the duck. (and of course the ones that already are
familiar with it).

In the control group you show them a great many pictures of ducks. Then show them the
same picture. You will consistently observe that then much more ducks are
observed even when repeating the test.

In short you can already see where this psychological data is leading: if you define the
problem into what beast is this or better what is this? The chance is greater
of actually spotting the two possibilities instead of one. And this is also
repeatedly seen if you don’t show any prior information.

So in order to enhance the chance of correctly
solving the DM problem you should correctly define the problem, because it
makes it more difficult for the brain to know what is asked of it. This problem
is greater for some than others. Conscientious people don’t see the problem as
much and the way they are causing problems for more open minded people. They
are more spot the dot then spot the picture. Like I stated earlier you could
take the simpler version that is depicted under the other one and give a lot of
dots instead of the line. They are good at taking in all the data but are also
very susceptible to authority and group pressure. On this I will elaborate.

Furthermore the group psychology comes into play. DM shows what the boss wants to see and
that you don’t get cookies if you don’t show that you are on the team. You see
this I guess in the negative points I got in my last posts. My cookies were
even withheld from me. Punishing me for daring to even imply that DM doesn’t
exist or to question science as it is at the moment. Whereas I’m not even doing
that concerning the existence of DM but quite the contrary.

This is all due to the way we know that our brain works. Unwittingly your brain is guessing
for you in order to make good sense of your surroundings. Now we also know that not everybody does this
in the same way. There are different talents involved in perceiving the world:

Talent for numbers; I for instance don’t have that as
much and thus thought I’d better not continue with mathematics after high
school. This I concluded when I was working on an integral and ended up with
where I started. I asked my math’s teacher and he said you should of divided
with 37. I asked how should I’ve seen that. He: well you should of. Anyway I
had to work very hard at it to keep up. There
are people who have an extremely low ability with numbers and are diagnosed via
DSM to have dyscalculia. These people lose out in our current society. They are
deemed stupid. In Africa there are tribes that have a lot of dyscalculia. They thus have clearly been able to survive
on other traits. And yet there are I’m
told great mathematicians with dyscalculia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

Talent for dimensions; Now for that I do have a knack. Way ahead of my class with geometry
without having to work at it. Now I observed in my class some kids that were
extremely good with numbers and totally fell out with geometry. In later years
this made me wonder, could it be that Mother Nature sais – at every level of
quickness of brain that also comes into play – if you are exceptionally good at
numbers you wouldn’t be at geometry and vice versa. With others averaged in
both areas? That is a speculation yet we know that we know a lot about the
brain but there is much more we don’t know. The exact workings of the brain are
one of the most difficult issues of science.

Talent for
perceiving movement; what is this dynamic process which we observe doing?

Talent for
colour; what would someone who is gifted with this see for nuance structures in
Hubble pictures? Just like people with a knack of numbers see structures in
numbered data? Such a person might not even be aware of this talent, because
only if differences arise would one notice. Why would we have that? Well it is
good to quickly spot the tiger in the grass before it pounces and alert the
group.

And all the
other talents and combinations thereof in relation to the relevant data.

People who are talented for the creativity to fill in the missing data spot the line for a
good hypothesis are open minded as
psychology teaches us. They are also
deemed cranks. Like Newton, Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci are also deemed
cranks by DSM. Also people who dare take greater risks are also deemed crank.

You can also see this in the way science has defined certain definitions:

The definition of Science:

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

The first given definition I agree on: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning
"knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the
universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in…..)

 

Science must be systematic. Well using substandard definitions when perfect definitions
are possible then by this definition it is thus unscientific.

Furthermore it is not only about predictions but
like I already pointed out also about testable explanations and predictions in
order to further this systematic endeavour to collect more data.

This shows that correct use of word salad definitions forces you to act differently. Even though
word salad isn’t as succinct as mathematics. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t really
matter how you define things. It does, even and I would say especially so in
physics.

We can observe that hardly anyone if at all in science is even trying to answer the big questions. The one who states that such a thing is
unscientific / useless is the one who has the burden of proof to prove that.

Forinstance TOE is also not defined correctly: because it is only used in a
historic and not as required by science in a systematic way: venturing to explain
all fundamental forces in nature in one theory via testable predictions. You don’t even have a definition that covers
that what you should be doing. Subsequently you reason that it would be
unscientific / pointless in trying. Hence no funding, hence a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Who says a current Leonardo da Vinci
wouldn’t be able to get us close to a TOE (including DM & DE) if he dared
to or was in a position to? Even though
say a thousand of people like I that are but a thousandth of a Leonardo it
would still pay off to try. On average you would even then generate one idea
that helps.

We don’t know if what Mother Nature is doing is not an illusion that if you see how she
does it, it will all seem ridiculously simple. As with good illusionists. If
you don’t try and test, you’ll never know. That is irrational unsystematic and
thus unscientific. It needs to be funded. This costs very little if done the way I pointed out earlier. So it
should be done that way. Unless you don’t agree with the given definition by
Wikipedia.

 

[swansont]

 

I will answer both Bignose and Swansont's last posts in this post. For I already agreed that I have

to provide the evidence and proof.

 

Now first of all let’s agree on the probandum:

• Physics is following incorrect

  scientific procedure by ill / incorrectly defining key issues such as DM.

• This has a significant negative

  impact on the furtherance of science.

 

We all don't have to agree on this. It's your thesis, and what you need to support.

 

If a perfect definition can be reached it

should be because it is not negligible. Dark matter is not a perfect definition

because it holds part of the probable answer in the definition of the problem,

where a perfect definition is possible. This proves point 1.

 

This proves nothing. You haven't shown that DM investigations have been in any way inhibited. In fact, you can find that there arecontributions that fall outside of that definition (e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510839, which suggests that DM could be "gravitons with non-linear self-interaction". Gravitons are not matter.) Thus, the definition is not stopping people from considering other solutions. In fact, if you search ArXiv for "dark matter" you get this response:

Your query resulted in too many hits, only 1000 hits are being displayed.

 

That's not what I would expect from research being constrained from a poor definition.

 

Furthermore the group psychology comes into play. DM shows what the boss wants to see and

that you don’t get cookies if you don’t show that you are on the team. You see

this I guess in the negative points I got in my last posts. My cookies were

even withheld from me. Punishing me for daring to even imply that DM doesn’t

exist or to question science as it is at the moment. Whereas I’m not even doing

that concerning the existence of DM but quite the contrary.

 

Ironic that you do here exactly what you accuse physics of doing. Defining a problem that precludes you finding the right answer. You simply assume that you were down-voted because you had the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy, and did not even consider it's because you are simply making a very poor argument.

 

 

[kristalris]

 

We all don't have to agree on this. It's your thesis, and what you need to support.

You stated earlier on that I had to provide evidence. It is subsequently purely practical that we don't have an argument on what I should prove or not. The second point I introduced BTW after an earlier remark of yours. So I just took it along in my stride. Well I'll take it that you agree then that I have to prove this and that I thus have not shirked from my burden of proof.

 

This proves nothing. You haven't shown that DM investigations have been in any way inhibited. In fact, you can find that there arecontributions that fall outside of that definition (e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510839, which suggests that DM could be "gravitons with non-linear self-interaction". Gravitons are not matter.) Thus, the definition is not stopping people from considering other solutions. In fact, if you search ArXiv for "dark matter" you get this response:

If you had read my point you would have noticed that I already dealt with this contingency in the - explication - on the given proof. I.e. that there are creative people who do spot, or are not subdued by the boss or crowd rule and who are "crank" enough to spot the duck even after to have been shown rabbits. If you understand the subsequent probabilistic effects of this that is on a key issue you are diminishing the probability of this happening in stead of trying to heighten these chances.

 

​Especially wise people who want to get things done will indeed shrike from giving their opinion. And wait an opportunity do do so. In fact you get more serious cranks that still participate. Now before you wisecrack I don't have anything to loose. I'm not a scientist, or physicist or mathematics. So it doesn't take that much guts for fear of consequence to stand up for proper science.

 

You are defending the indefensible position that sloppy definitions doesn't matter. They do as I pointed out with the undisputed appropriate formula I gave prior to my proof.

 

 

 

That's not what I would expect from research being constrained from a poor definition.

See above.

 

Ironic that you do here exactly what you accuse physics of doing. Defining a problem that precludes you finding the right answer. You simply assume that you were down-voted because you had the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy, and did not even consider it's because you are simply making a very poor argument.

 

 

Now you take an elaboration and further explanation on my part as being part of the proof. I didn't present it as such. So on the actual given proof you pose no argument. Want to try again to do so?

[ACG52]

 

So on the actual given proof you pose no argument. Want to try again to do so?

 

There's been no proof or evidence of any kind given.

 

You simply make statements and say that they're proof of whatever point you think your making.

[kristalris]

There's been no proof or evidence of any kind given.

 

You simply make statements and say that they're proof of whatever point you think your making.

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of standards of proof and probabilistic reasoning.

 

Anyway, given the definitions I gave the proof I've given is neigh absolute because pure logic given as yet undisputed facts. I would have to repeat myself.

 

You are the one that simply states something without even a semblance of a substantiated argument.

 

So you can say that my probandum is incorrect;

 

Or you can state that the statements I've taken as fact are not to be taken as such. But then you will have to say which these are.And state why these are not to be taken as a fact. Of course you can place a near absolute proof standard of proof on the acceptance of facts that would be deemed such by most scientists who's fields the facts concern and people in general as well. In that way apart from standards of proof that can be reached in physics nothing at all could be proven. This because inherently physics can reach higher standards because it is performed in a field where you usually can measure what you are doing very well.

 

Alas the later not always and then you should apply different standards of proof. As is done in all / most other parts of science.

 

You can say that the formula I used is incorrect or incorrectly used.

[ACG52]

 

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of standards of proof and probabilistic reasoning.

 

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of scientific evidence and proofs.

[swansont]

You are defending the indefensible position that sloppy definitions doesn't matter.

 

This is a strawman, and also moot. I am not arguing that sloppy definitions don't matter. You have proposed that sloppy, i.e. incorrect, definitions of issues exist, and that this has inhibited the progress of physics. You need to show that these claims are valid. You haven't. You've just restated your thesis. That's not proof.

 

They do as I pointed out with the undisputed appropriate formula I gave prior to my proof.

 

What formula? Take care you do not employ the argument from ignorance fallacy

 

And what proof? I seem to have missed that you have proven anything.

[Bignose]

Now first of all let’s agree on the probandum:

• Physics is following incorrect

  scientific procedure by ill / incorrectly defining key issues such as DM.

• This has a significant negative

  impact on the furtherance of science.

 

 

this is the second time you've done this in this thread. I don't have to agree to anything you say just because you state it. I promised earlier that if you provide evidence that the effect you claim is happening is actually happening, then I'll look over your evidence and evaluate it. But, I'm not just going to agree to your point with no evidence provided.

 

Actually, rounding this all the way back to the 1st posts in this thread, isn't this proposition of yours influenced by confirmation bias? I mean, I see you claiming that this effect of poorly worded terms has profoundly affected physics research. And now you can't help but see it everywhere. For example in the term dark matter (that I explained seems quite reasonably named to me) that apparently has plenty of research papers written on it, per Swansont's post.

 

So, I'd like to see some objective evidence of this effect, and I'd like you to demonstrate to me that the evidence you do pick isn't just evidence biased to support your position.

[kristalris]

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of scientific evidence and proofs.

I'm fully aware of that. That is in fact of what the argument is about. Whether physics like all other sciences should use different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. I.e. for instance to decide whether or not a concept is proven or not. This in fact has to do with the amount of risk you are willing or should take (using for instance public money). I.e. what percentage of failed tests should you accept. So if you place the standard of proof for that as high as you would in order to discern if a theory is proven, then you in fact say that physics doesn't have a concept level, in the sense that such a level warrants any systematic different way of funding.

The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence and then click to scientific methode where you will see what I'm stressing:

Hypothesis development

Main article: Hypothesis formation

An hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

William Glen observes that

the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.^[56]

In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable amongst a group of equally explanatory hypotheses.

I agree on this. I guess you including Swansont and Bignose don't.

Now you et all are stressing I guess the link anecdotal evidence. I will again show in my reaction to them both that I adhere to a Baysian probabilistic reasoned proof in which you can / must a priori agree upon how much risk you must take. And not act as if there is only one standard of proof.

 

This is a strawman, and also moot. I am not arguing that sloppy definitions don't matter. You have proposed that sloppy, i.e. incorrect, definitions of issues exist, and that this has inhibited the progress of physics. You need to show that these claims are valid. You haven't. You've just restated your thesis. That's not proof.

I've proved that DM is a sloppy definition. You still defend that DM is okay as a definition. Thus no strawman when I say that you thus defend a sloppy definition by defending DM.

 

The formula (again) is: Risk = chance x consequence. This is (again) the standard of proof I need to meet. If I prove on basis of scientific readily established facts in psychology that the risk of an inhibition in science will rise when you use a sloppy definition like DM, then that is evidence that will let the risk in the formula rise and readily prove my case. You may take that as proof leading to the conclusion that you shouldn't use DM as a definition in science. (You could and should of spotted this immediately, that DM is a sloppy definition, but anyway.) You simply aren't allowed to take such risks in science. Period.

 

The evidence in psychology is that DM points in a direction, that isn't as yet proven to be correct, thus the science of psychology shows that you run this risk of not spotting the correct direction to investigate. This already proves my point. What you want is for me to prove that we would of already had solved DM if it were not for a wrong definition, or what? Do you think that is the appropriate standard of proof to tell you that it was wrong to accept DM as a definition in the first place? I.e. that you (science) should stop using it, that science should be more careful in the future and that if you take this as a fact that there then is a reason for that that needs to be addressed.

 

Edit: Psychological science can be taken as evidence and thus fact, and is thus not moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What formula? Take care you do not employ the argument from ignorance fallacy

 

And what proof? I seem to have missed that you have proven anything.

 

Edit: See above. If I show psychological evidence and take that as fact of a rising risk I've proven the case on the standard of proof that is applicable in the above given formula.

 

Science shows that before flight in an aircraft you should't smere unknown substances in or on your aircraft as a dark matter. Science shows this even if it isn't stated in the flight manual that you shouldn't do this. You run a risk that you shouldn't be taking. I don't then have to prove that the dark matter that still is being spread has already crashed an aircraft as proof. Or do you think I should then?

 

So in science you use correct definitions, period. Al the more so on key issues such as DM. You (science) haven't so there is something wrong in physics that has caused you lot to do this. You keep on smereing dark matter definitions on your aircraft saying we don't see the problem. The science of psychology tells you there is a problem with that. And it is not systematically correct to use incorrect definitions. Science per definition is about working systematically. It is thus unscientific to use incorrect definitions. Period.

Edited January 29, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

I'm fully aware of that. That is in fact of what the argument is about. Whether physics like all other sciences should use different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. I.e. for instance to decide whether or not a concept is proven or not. This in fact has to do with the amount of risk you are willing or should take (using for instance public money). I.e. what percentage of failed tests should you accept. So if you place the standard of proof for that as high as you would in order to discern if a theory is proven, then you in fact say that physics doesn't have a concept level, in the sense that such a level warrants any systematic different way of funding.

The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem.

 

You argument has several components, and you keep jumping to the last one, assuming the prior ones are true. Others are still focusing on the earlier ones. It really isn't useful to talk about the parts we haven't gotten to yet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence and then click to scientific methode where you will see what I'm stressing:

Hypothesis development

Main article: Hypothesis formation

An hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

William Glen observes that

the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.^[56]

In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable amongst a group of equally explanatory hypotheses.

 

I agree on this. I guess you including Swansont and Bignose don't.

 

You keep missing the point. I don't disagree with the scientific method as described here, and I suspect Bignose doesn't either. The issue is that you are not adequately showing how this has failed.

 

This is also a contradiction on your part. You agree that you must formulate hypotheses and test them, but simultaneously demand that the definition of the scope of the problem, which is part of the hypothesis, never be wrong.

 

 

Now you et all are stressing I guess the link anecdotal evidence. I will again show in my reaction to them both that I adhere to a Baysian probabilistic reasoned proof in which you can / must a priori agree upon how much risk you must take. And not act as if there is only one standard of proof.

 

I've proved that DM is a sloppy definition. You still defend that DM is okay as a definition. Thus no strawman when I say that you thus defend a sloppy definition by defending DM.

 

No, you haven't. You've asserted (and re-asserted) that it is, but that's not proof.

 

The formula (again) is: Risk = chance x consequence. This is (again) the standard of proof I need to meet. If I prove on basis of scientific readily established facts in psychology that the risk of an inhibition in science will rise when you use a sloppy definition like DM, then that is evidence that will let the risk in the formula rise and readily prove my case. You may take that as proof leading to the conclusion that you shouldn't use DM as a definition in science. (You could and should of spotted this immediately, that DM is a sloppy definition, but anyway.) You simply aren't allowed to take such risks in science. Period.

 

How is this formula derived? What are the units of risk, chance and consequence? Are any of these variables bounded? How do you determine the values of the variables?

 

 

The evidence in psychology is that DM points in a direction, that isn't as yet proven to be correct, thus the science of psychology shows that you run this risk of not spotting the correct direction to investigate. This already proves my point. What you want is for me to prove that we would of already had solved DM if it were not for a wrong definition, or what? Do you think that is the appropriate standard of proof to tell you that it was wrong to accept DM as a definition in the first place? I.e. that you (science) should stop using it, that science should be more careful in the future and that if you take this as a fact that there then is a reason for that that needs to be addressed.

 

Edit: Psychological science can be taken as evidence and thus fact, and is thus not moot.

 

Where is the evidence that visual illusions are pertinent to this?

 

The strawman was the claim that I was defending that definitions don't matter. I never claimed that.

 

 

 

 

So in science you use correct definitions, period. Al the more so on key issues such as DM. You (science) haven't so there is something wrong in physics that has caused you lot to do this. You keep on smereing dark matter definitions on your aircraft saying we don't see the problem. The science of psychology tells you there is a problem with that. And it is not systematically correct to use incorrect definitions. Science per definition is about working systematically. It is thus unscientific to use incorrect definitions. Period.

 

So basically the claim is that because we haven't solved the question of dark matter is solely because of a poor definition — if we had defined the problem properly, we'd have solved it by now. That's laughable. Look at almost any path of discovery in science and there will be reasons why the discovery was not made earlier, owing to incomplete knowledge. You can't completely define a problem if you don't have the requisite knowledge.

 

In fact, instead of focusing on an unsolved problem to prove your thesis, why aren't we discussing historical problems, where we can see how the discovery progressed? Relativity, perhaps, or the discovery of the neutrino? Those are pretty good examples.

[kristalris]

 

You argument has several components, and you keep jumping to the last one, assuming the prior ones are true. Others are still focusing on the earlier ones. It really isn't useful to talk about the parts we haven't gotten to yet.

"The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem" This detail (about the use of correct definitions) isn't that then one of the earlier ones?.

 

You keep missing the point. I don't disagree with the scientific method as described here, and I suspect Bignose doesn't either. The issue is that you are not adequately showing how this has failed.

I guess that what keeps us divided as a misunderstanding then is that you expect me to show that science has crashed and that I state that I can suffice in showing that the chance of a crash has been raised needlessly during a longer period without positive result and not to be excluded negative results (i.e. crash).

This is also a contradiction on your part. You agree that you must formulate hypotheses and test them, but simultaneously demand that the definition of the scope of the problem, which is part of the hypothesis, never be wrong.

Yes and no. A hypotheses inherently takes itself to be absolutely true (even-though it inherently isn't). Logic / mathematics dictate to be filled as a garbage non garbage input to be fed with absolute truths i.e. facts. Before proving a hypothesis in an argument one should agree on the hypothesis otherwise what is then the need of the exercise? I prove something based on not agreed facts. If you can't find any a priori common ground then it is impossible to prove or disprove anything.

 

If you don't agree that people exist then the hypothesis I posed is meaningless. So if we agree this and that I predict and thus will prove such and so being the probandum given a standard of proof of (a norm) a posterior odds higher than this (that can also be stated in word salad.). The latter shows how much risk you are taking by showing the amount of fails you accept.

 

Logically this acceptable risk can also be taken as no action or non-action to be acceptable that raises the risk.

 

The Wikipedia quote you agree on shows that a proof can also be given in science without mathematics. I.e. in word salad.

 

So if I show a raised risk based on evidence that is current science I've proved position on this appropriate standard of proof. Proof based on word salad is inherently educated guesswork. Educated guesswork that reasonable people will agree on provided common ground can be found as to priors.

 

Simply questioning all priors isn't reasonable. You can then as said question everything, even our existence. If you do that then no one can prove anything anymore. You need to determine common ground prior to any proof.

 

 

 

 

No, you haven't. You've asserted (and re-asserted) that it is, but that's not proof.

Dependent on common ground and standard of proof I have.

 

How is this formula derived? What are the units of risk, chance and consequence? Are any of these variables bounded? How do you determine the values of the variables?

This is a very common formula in risk assessment. Apart from that it is simple logic. You don't have to put the mathematics into it, word salad will suffice: If you want to fly safely (keep the risk of a crash to a possible minimum) in aircraft exclude all unnecessary chances that even might heighten this. I.e. if you do something that you are not shore is inconsequential it is prohibited. The more you don't want the bad chance (consequence) the more effort is needed to keep the chance down. I.e. raising the chance and even possibly raising the chance in key issues that you don't want happening forces you not to take that chance, even if it is very small. The possible consequences i.e. risk is to great.

 

Don't tell e this is new for you?

 

Where is the evidence that visual illusions are pertinent to this?

Textbook basic psychology. But I have come to the conclusion that I don't even need this to prove my point.

 

Sorry have to go, can't save this so I'll post and react to the rest later.

 

The strawman was the claim that I was defending that definitions don't matter. I never claimed that.

 

 

 

 

 

So basically the claim is that because we haven't solved the question of dark matter is solely because of a poor definition — if we had defined the problem properly, we'd have solved it by now. That's laughable. Look at almost any path of discovery in science and there will be reasons why the discovery was not made earlier, owing to incomplete knowledge. You can't completely define a problem if you don't have the requisite knowledge.

 

In fact, instead of focusing on an unsolved problem to prove your thesis, why aren't we discussing historical problems, where we can see how the discovery progressed? Relativity, perhaps, or the discovery of the neutrino? Those are pretty good examples.

[swansont]

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

"The discussion at hand is a discussion of a detail of this central problem" This detail (about the use of correct definitions) isn't that then one of the earlier ones?.

Yes. And you were discussing funding, which is not.

 

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

I guess that what keeps us divided as a misunderstanding then is that you expect me to show that science has crashed and that I state that I can suffice in showing that the chance of a crash has been raised needlessly during a longer period without positive result and not to be excluded negative results (i.e. crash).

How do you propose to show this? How can you possibly show that something could be known, if we don't yet know it?

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

Yes and no. A hypotheses inherently takes itself to be absolutely true (even-though it inherently isn't). Logic / mathematics dictate to be filled as a garbage non garbage input to be fed with absolute truths i.e. facts. Before proving a hypothesis in an argument one should agree on the hypothesis otherwise what is then the need of the exercise? I prove something based on not agreed facts. If you can't find any a priori common ground then it is impossible to prove or disprove anything.

 

If you don't agree that people exist then the hypothesis I posed is meaningless. So if we agree this and that I predict and thus will prove such and so being the probandum given a standard of proof of (a norm) a posterior odds higher than this (that can also be stated in word salad.). The latter shows how much risk you are taking by showing the amount of fails you accept.

Sorry, I can;t make sense of this. Where did the question of whether people exist enter the discussion? garbage non garbage?

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

The Wikipedia quote you agree on shows that a proof can also be given in science without mathematics. I.e. in word salad.

Where does it say that?

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

So if I show a raised risk based on evidence that is current science I've proved position on this appropriate standard of proof.

So show it already.

kristalris, on 29 Jan 2013 - 16:15, said:

Textbook basic psychology. But I have come to the conclusion that I don't even need this to prove my point.

Yes, it's basic psychology. For illusions. Show how it applies to the issue we're discussing.

[kristalris]

Yes. And you were discussing funding, which is not.

 

How do you propose to show this? How can you possibly show that something could be known, if we don't yet know it?Sorry, I can;t make sense of this. Where did the question of whether people exist enter the discussion? garbage non garbage?Where does it say that?

So show it already.

Yes, it's basic psychology. For illusions. Show how it applies to the issue we're discussing.

I see that I stated to agree with the Wikipedia quote where I took existential statements to be linked to word salad yet it is linked to existential quantification. So you are correct there. Though that eq is as such correct the page is now incomplete. It should of been linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth). And that can be done even in science in word salad. And yes also in physics when discussing what is the correct procedure in lieu of funding. The latter has nothing as such to do with physics other than that if you don't or incorrectly fund it, due to following an incorrect scientific procedure it will have a ill effect on the furtherance of physics. I guess we can at least agree on that?

 

Otherwise the reasoning is circular. Like I stated earlier yes you can put all words into digital mathematics. This doesn't mean that science is only about mathematics. Or, that science isn't about proof. To prove something simply means that you (formally) except something to be true. This doesn't mean that you accept it as absolutely true. You can state the accepted fault rate given that you hold something to be true. Or you can assume an acceptable fault rate if the proof is only done in words. You only take it as absolutely true in the subsequent logical reasoning or mathematical formula.

 

Now if you are in a scientific debate concerning correct scientific procedure in detail on the procedure of how to define problems as a part problem of how to fund science, then you have to take certain things as to be true. In a debate all parties are bound to strive to ascertain common ground. Common ground i.e. that the debaters hold for true doesn't have to be proven. Participants are thus honor bound to state position and can not sit back and state nothing and simply dispute everything. (Hence to show that this would be unreasonable I gave the example of stating that humans don't exist, forcing me to prove that.)

 

Common sense doesn't need proof unless disputed. It doesn't then need scientific proof when there is none to be had, yet might provide a reason to do scientific research. Common sense can be set aside by even a non intuitive scientific position. It's common sense to not infringe on any scientific fact. This again doesn't mean that anything you do or don't do even in science or physics must be scientifically proven. I.e. you should always use common sense even as the basis of science given this proviso. Again it isn't common sense to conflict with science.

 

So if I state that DM is a substandard definition, for the reasons I stated earlier. Then it is fair to ask if you agree on this or not. I'm now not shore what your position is. Is it yes it is substandard but it is of no or negligible consequence? Or are you stating no, it is a perfect definition of this problem?

 

You need to state what your position is so that I know if and what I have to prove. Because otherwise I'm entitled to take implicit positions by you at their face value, without doing a strawman. You must state your position in order for us to ascertain the scope of the discussion. If you fail in doing so, you can't subsequently claim a strawman by me.

 

A strawman would be that I willfully misrepresent your position. But not if I fill in an implicit or logically assumed position where you fail in your obligation to search common ground.

 

So what is exactly your position concerning the definition of DM?

[swansont]

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

I see that I stated to agree with the Wikipedia quote where I took existential statements to be linked to word salad yet it is linked to existential quantification. So you are correct there. Though that eq is as such correct the page is now incomplete. It should of been linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth). And that can be done even in science in word salad.

Wait, what? You agree the blurb doesn't agree with you, and you offer no further argument just a link to a list of different uses of "proof". That does not lead to the conclusion that you are right.

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

And yes also in physics when discussing what is the correct procedure in lieu of funding. The latter has nothing as such to do with physics other than that if you don't or incorrectly fund it, due to following an incorrect scientific procedure it will have a ill effect on the furtherance of physics. I guess we can at least agree on that?

Yes, lack of funding or incorrect procedure inhibits progress.

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

Otherwise the reasoning is circular. Like I stated earlier yes you can put all words into digital mathematics. This doesn't mean that science is only about mathematics. Or, that science isn't about proof. To prove something simply means that you (formally) except something to be true. This doesn't mean that you accept it as absolutely true. You can state the accepted fault rate given that you hold something to be true. Or you can assume an acceptable fault rate if the proof is only done in words. You only take it as absolutely true in the subsequent logical reasoning or mathematical formula.

You accept it to be true because you have data which fits a model. Enough data, and a good enough model, that it is unreasonable to disagree.

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

Now if you are in a scientific debate concerning correct scientific procedure in detail on the procedure of how to define problems as a part problem of how to fund science, then you have to take certain things as to be true. In a debate all parties are bound to strive to ascertain common ground. Common ground i.e. that the debaters hold for true doesn't have to be proven. Participants are thus honor bound to state position and can not sit back and state nothing and simply dispute everything. (Hence to show that this would be unreasonable I gave the example of stating that humans don't exist, forcing me to prove that.)

No, it is within the realm of scientific procedure to object to a result. If you claim humans didn't exist, I am not obligated to show that they do, though in that trivial case it would be the easiest way. I already pointed you to the fallacy you do not assume things to be true simply because nobody has shown the proposal to be false. If you claim something, the burden of proof ids on you to support it.

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

Common sense doesn't need proof unless disputed. It doesn't then need scientific proof when there is none to be had, yet might provide a reason to do scientific research. Common sense can be set aside by even a non intuitive scientific position. It's common sense to not infringe on any scientific fact. This again doesn't mean that anything you do or don't do even in science or physics must be scientifically proven. I.e. you should always use common sense even as the basis of science given this proviso. Again it isn't common sense to conflict with science.

 

So if I state that DM is a substandard definition, for the reasons I stated earlier. Then it is fair to ask if you agree on this or not. I'm now not shore what your position is. Is it yes it is substandard but it is of no or negligible consequence? Or are you stating no, it is a perfect definition of this problem?

You are presenting a false dichotomy here: substandard or perfect. I already stated my answer: the definition of the problem is adequate. The evidence for that is that research is occurring and getting results.

kristalris, on 30 Jan 2013 - 06:25, said:

You need to state what your position is so that I know if and what I have to prove. Because otherwise I'm entitled to take implicit positions by you at their face value, without doing a strawman. You must state your position in order for us to ascertain the scope of the discussion. If you fail in doing so, you can't subsequently claim a strawman by me.

 

A strawman would be that I willfully misrepresent your position. But not if I fill in an implicit or logically assumed position where you fail in your obligation to search common ground.

 

So what is exactly your position concerning the definition of DM?

As I noted before, the situation is adequately defined to allow research to progress. Research is progressing.

[kristalris]

Wait, what? You agree the blurb doesn't agree with you, and you offer no further argument just a link to a list of different uses of "proof". That does not lead to the conclusion that you are right.

 

 

Well rereading the Wikipedia page I first quoted what I'm on about is under the first link. Because the other link mentioned "statements" I didn't expect it to link too quantification's From the first link then:

Subjective information

Sometimes it is useful to incorporate subjective information into a mathematical model. This can be done based on intuition, experience, or expert opinion, or based on convenience of mathematical form. Bayesian statistics provides a theoretical framework for incorporating such subjectivity into a rigorous analysis: one specifies a prior probability distribution (which can be subjective) and then updates this distribution based on empirical data. An example of when such approach would be necessary is a situation in which an experimenter bends a coin slightly and tosses it once, recording whether it comes up heads, and is then given the task of predicting the probability that the next flip comes up heads. After bending the coin, the true probability that the coin will come up heads is unknown, so the experimenter would need to make an arbitrary decision (perhaps by looking at the shape of the coin) about what prior distribution to use. Incorporation of the subjective information is necessary in this case to get an accurate prediction of the probability, since otherwise one would guess 1 or 0 as the probability of the next flip being heads, which would be almost certainly wrong.^[6]

Do you agree with this? I do. The link on proof shows that there is such a thing as a proper way to prove things in science as part of proper scientific procedure.

Yes, lack of funding or incorrect procedure inhibits progress.You accept it to be true because you have data which fits a model. Enough data, and a good enough model, that it is unreasonable to disagree.

Well then we finally agree on something.

No, it is within the realm of scientific procedure to object to a result. If you claim humans didn't exist, I am not obligated to show that they do, though in that trivial case it would be the easiest way. I already pointed you to the fallacy you do not assume things to be true simply because nobody has shown the proposal to be false. If you claim something, the burden of proof ids on you to support it.You are presenting a false dichotomy here: substandard or perfect. I already stated my answer: the definition of the problem is adequate. The evidence for that is that research is occurring and getting results.As I noted before, the situation is adequately defined to allow research to progress. Research is progressing.

But when I then say that your "adequately" means / is synonymous with "(possibly) less than perfect" where a perfect definition is possible it is not a false dichotomy because if the standard is perfection, not being so is per definition then substandard as would "adequate" be so; nor is what I stated a strawman.

 

Is this: "DM is a (possibly) less than perfect definition, yet to all (as stated above) intent and purposes adequate" indeed what you mean to say? And do you agree that a perfect definition for DM is possible what I state it is, for instance in the definition I gave earlier?

 

This just to narrow down to what I indeed carry the burden of proof of.