Bignose Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 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.Be careful reading too much into this, kristalris. Bayesian statistics is, in my general opinion, underutilized, but one of it's central tenants is that while your initial probability distribution is based on experience, intuition, or best guesses, that initial distribution becomes less and less important as actual measured data comes in. In the end, the measured data completely and total dominates the calculations. (In many ways, almost exactly what I said from the very beginning.)
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 kristalris, you may be interested in reading Paul Feyerabend's book Against Method, which argues that historically science has not followed any scientific method at all, and that any scientific method you could force upon scientists would prevent any progress from being made. 1
kristalris Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 kristalris, you may be interested in reading Paul Feyerabend's book Against Method, which argues that historically science has not followed any scientific method at all, and that any scientific method you could force upon scientists would prevent any progress from being made. Thanks, I'm quite aware of his idea's and even agree with them. As far as I understand Feyerabend (nice name BTW: it means (sounds like) celebrating the evening off at the end of the day in German) he actually, like I do, wanted to urgently organize getting free spirits to roam free. Exactly as I do. I.e. he was fighting exactly the same fight I am. The problem is, and in that I agree with him as well (if I understand him correctly), is that any system has the tendency towards bureaucracy. This bureaucracy has taken over science more and more and that is IMO based in funding. The problem of the latter and the tendency towards bureaucracy is psychological. I think (based on current insights in psychology (that have I guess also been around in another guise for longer)) that this can effectively be counterbalanced. So on the one side science should cultivate a culture (and does BTW, it isn't all gloom) of free spirit in which the oddball crank is supported by the means to do so and supported via criticism to follow his or her own route. Of course. Yet on the other hand we can't spread all our resources evenly over all the odd ball cranks. Now my idea is to get the most creative of these (in say physics) to decide what to do with part of the pot of gold (a percentage of the funding). (This leads to the subsequent question how to determine you then are these creative ones and can they fund themselves etc.. Yet that is a later point. First the question do we need a research department in science, and who do you put in there? ) So there is such a thing as a common goal in science that makes science and the scientific method to what it is. Say we were to state a goal like reaching a Grand TOE (= uni-fining all fundamental forces in one theory including thus at the moment DM & DE), like Kennedy stated to put a man on the moon within a decade That got things going. Then it is no longer odd ball crank to try and jump directly at it and fail. Psychology and group psychology providing funding and common goal. I.e. you state a goal and organize support. Yet support of the creative ones as well. But let them subsequently free in to figure out how to get there. I guess Feyerabend would agree. The idea that it is out of reach at the moment is probably a self fulfilling prophesy. The only way to prove or disprove (I was just coming to the point to show Swansont he also carries that burden of proof) this point is to actually state that goal get the funding organized in this way. I predict results and fast. Why? Well, it depends on what you believe. And here I again agree with Feyeraband if I understand him correctly. Physicists leave out on the philosophy and that is wrong. Yet it is practical and shows correct scientific procedure (Feyeraband might then disagree): It's as practical as solving a crime scene. I think Mother Nature to be a mass murderer posing as a magician yet being an illusionist. => we are in a hurry! If I'm indeed correct in that illusionist then I'd expect to see a few elegant basic rules emerge when going at it in the way you do a CSI. If you do a CSI not looking at the big picture making plausible scenario's with your imagination and testing them, yet go by a pre written book swiping DNA systematically from the scene I would expect the amount of suspects to rise and the problem to diverge into a conundrum. If you get the good guessers to guess what happened via a scenario, and swipe accordingly I would expect the pieces of the puzzle to fall into place and the investigation to quickly converge on the likely suspects and ultimate villain. Physics at the moment is not converging but diverging into more and more of a conundrum DE and DM being recent add on's. As you would expect when you don't look at all the data and also address all the problems: c = max of everything! Incorrect scientific procedure: the correct observation is: only of what we can at the moment observe (and what we do observe can actually only be explained by speeds > c) Time slows down! Incorrect scientific procedure: we observe the clocks slow down. Length contraction! Incorrect scientific procedure: we observe frequency changes. DM, DE and TOE all incorrectly defined: incorrect scientific procedure. (Science is systematic, so you must split this from the effect. It is wrong thus infringement on scientific procedure thus, I have proved this. I don't even need the subsequent science of psychology or risk assessment, that BTW also point in this direction as does history) This subsequently means you may assume that to have effect and on key issues thus an intolerable effect. Hence the burden of proof shifts. But that also comes to the same test via building a new research department on what to fund on a stated goal. That science is plodding along doesn't mean it is okay and that the definitions are adequate. It should plod along faster, start jumping! And organize it accordingly! Be careful reading too much into this, kristalris. Bayesian statistics is, in my general opinion, underutilized, but one of it's central tenants is that while your initial probability distribution is based on experience, intuition, or best guesses, that initial distribution becomes less and less important as actual measured data comes in. In the end, the measured data completely and total dominates the calculations. (In many ways, almost exactly what I said from the very beginning.) I totally agree.
swansont Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 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. What definition did you give earlier? I don't see where you did this. How do you "perfectly" define the scope of a problem if you don't know the answer to that problem? So there is such a thing as a common goal in science that makes science and the scientific method to what it is. Say we were to state a goal like reaching a Grand TOE (= uni-fining all fundamental forces in one theory including thus at the moment DM & DE), like Kennedy stated to put a man on the moon within a decade That got things going. Then it is no longer odd ball crank to try and jump directly at it and fail. Psychology and group psychology providing funding and common goal. Wait. Kennedy saying "let's put a man on the moon" is a perfectly defined problem, but "let's find what dark matter is" is not? How do you figure that? Time slows down! Incorrect scientific procedure: we observe the clocks slow down. Since this is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, your conclusion is invalid. It's also wrong: GPS works, for example. How can that be, if incorrect procedure is followed?
kristalris Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) What definition did you give earlier? I don't see where you did this. A perfect definition of a problem doesn't contain part of the presumed answer as does DM. Now that is extremely simple to do. First of all by not putting part of the answer in the title. So say you made the discovery of DM you could call it Dark Swansont. Perfect title then. The further definition then is just an accurate description of what you observe and separate why that is to be defined as a problem. The latter of course because what is observed doesn't fit current laws of physics. (That is if you correctly define them as laws, which isn't done correctly either. Anyway in current scientific lingo: because it doesn't fit current theory.) Anyway you should strive for perfection because in this sense it should be attainable. So if you spot an imperfection in your definition of the problem you should at least point that out and strive to correct it. I'm not a physicist so physicists may provide the definition. As a taxpayer I am entitled to point towards evidently flawed definitions on key issues, and to subsequently assume that this may play a significant role in not getting the problem solved in the quickest and least costly manner. For you to prove that this incorrect scientific procedure in defining properly doesn't cause undue delay in solving the problem. That then is a probatio diabolica. You must strive in science for perfect definitions; period. You can't afford even the slightest risk that it indeed does pose a problem. Especially on key issues as DM. (and DE, and TOE and GR & QM as to not containing laws are all incorrectly defined (TOE by some and not Wiki see below).) BTW see it as I as a taxpayer point towards physicists working on these issues as coughing. They state this not to be serious, they state their health is adequate it being a slight irritation. I on the other hand see it as a possible even probable sign of something more serious. Something nothing to do with physics directly but psychology that then does effect the physics indirectly. Hence somewhat difficult for physicists - being humans - to spot, not being psychologists or duly interested in such subjects. If it were not a serious problem it should't be such a big issue striving to perfecting the definitions then would it now? It even touches taboo's. Having taboo's in production isn't a problem, in research that's usually a major issue. DM, DE, TOE are key research questions. How do you "perfectly" define the scope of a problem if you don't know the answer to that problem? See above. You leave it open, for the open minds to play at in stead of conscientiously closing it and narrowing it down. And subsequently claiming that only that is science, and only funding that and opposing the other. Being then incorrect scientific procedure. Wait. Kennedy saying "let's put a man on the moon" is a perfectly defined problem, but "let's find what dark matter is" is not? How do you figure that? The correct defined problem is: lets find the TOE before the end of the decade. TOE being then correctly defined as: finding A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle.[1] I I agree on this Wikipedia definition because it then per definition includes DM and DE. IMO a perfect definition. That this theory ultimately could become something like the laws of Newton isn't of immediate concern. "Everything" is an open title and doesn't even suggest a per se deterministic or what ever answer as is stated in a critique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Present_status (Something happened to the quote box: quote) Since this is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, your conclusion is invalid. It's also wrong: GPS works, for example. How can that be, if incorrect procedure is followed? end quote; edit: I don't see why it is invalid to state that we only observe measured time slow down as a more correct way of stating the observation as opposed to time slowing down. (Again that depends on how you define "time" again wrong definition if you were to define that as being what the clock reads.It leads to incorrect conclusions that when you exceed c you travel back in time which being deemed impossible leads to the subsequent error of thinking that c = max. And if it isn't, that then leads to a conundrum we're in now. Start funding research in speeds > c as well. Edit 2: Defining time to be what the clock reads means that we can already travel back in time. I.e. by plane in crossing the time zones we then fly back in time. With time defined as a physical reality it isn't possible to travel back in time because that causes a contradiction. The probability of which is smaller than having a God because that doesn't constitute a logical contradiction (even though extremely unlikely as well but far less so.) So yes, it is important to keep the definitions in order. Well with GPS obviously a sufficiently correct scientific procedure was followed. But there was no (as far as I'm aware) fundamental research required into GR, SR, QM or FT. These as far as needed could be taken of the shelf so to speak. So I'm not wrong. I.e. the problem that I'm pointing to is a common psychological problem that runs right trough any society. Take it as the "laws" of history that history (of science as well) repeats itself. (Because we don't learn from the past, because we now know of DNA we could start to) And the "law" of history that what is forward will become backwards. Then, again, I'm not saying that everything is wrong in science either. (Take GPS as you correctly point out.) It's a bit like Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson's "The Best is..." when comparing a tractor with a Ferrari. Current scientific method can be seen as a tractor. Slow but steady low risk progress. I don't state that we should stop in doing that. What I'm opposing as an incorrect scientific procedure is not also using the Ferrari when you think you see a road that is quicker. Putting our present day Einsteins, Newtons, and Leonardo da Vinci physicists or closest that we can find (all open minded cranks BTW) in a team with the goal: get us to a TOE before the decade is out and here's the funding, will render results. Especially if you explicitly make it clear to everyone that a lot of failed attempts are taken for granted. So I'm not suggesting that all funding be done this way. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially not because this then is the new to be tested correct scientific method. The latter BTW being both: you keep doing the tractor AND the Ferrari method because only that is the correct scientific procedure. It's doing BOTH and not just one with the exclusion of the other because that is being un-scientific. If Mother Nature is indeed - what I'm convinced of - an illusionist, then it must be possible to fairly quickly ascertain what illusions she is playing at. The solution will in the end if found with out a doubt be deemed idiotically crank by current standards yet extremely simple with hindsight. If you are indeed convinced that this is indeed what MN is doing, or even if you think it possible then the fast high risk Ferrari method is the essential and premier correct scientific method to be done ASAP (on fundamental issues like this.). This because Mother Nature is a mass murderer and getting to a TOE quicker than later will - I'm convinced - save - a lot - of lives and suffering. THAT'S SCIENCE! as in correct scientific procedure. Edited February 5, 2013 by kristalris -1
swansont Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 A perfect definition of a problem doesn't contain part of the presumed answer as does DM. Now that is extremely simple to do. First of all by not putting part of the answer in the title. So say you made the discovery of DM you could call it Dark Swansont. Perfect title then. Of course, that assumes that we don't know if it's matter or something else. But given our options we do know it's matter, so this objection is moot. Back when the neutrino was hypothesized, one could use your reasoning to object to its naming — "little neutral one". Did that restrict the research, by identifying it as neutral? No, of course not. The experiments that identified that something was missing had already shown that any new particle must be neutral. Similarly, whatever is missing from the rotation rates of galaxies is not due to massless particles, because massless particles behave in certain ways that are inconsistent with what we see. Thus, what is missing is mass, and that means matter. This is a bogus objection. The further definition then is just an accurate description of what you observe and separate why that is to be defined as a problem. The latter of course because what is observed doesn't fit current laws of physics. (That is if you correctly define them as laws, which isn't done correctly either. Anyway in current scientific lingo: because it doesn't fit current theory.) Well, no this is not correct. It is the assumption that the laws are correct that prompt the search for dark matter. Amazingly, and contrary to your stance, people were not limited by the naming to see if maybe the laws needed to be changed. The problem is that modifications to the laws don't actually fix anything. Anyway you should strive for perfection because in this sense it should be attainable. So if you spot an imperfection in your definition of the problem you should at least point that out and strive to correct it. I'm not a physicist so physicists may provide the definition. As a taxpayer I am entitled to point towards evidently flawed definitions on key issues, and to subsequently assume that this may play a significant role in not getting the problem solved in the quickest and least costly manner. You've spotted what you claim to be an imperfection in the definition, and yet you admit you aren't a physicist. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that you don't know as much about the problems as physicists do, and the "imperfection" is your knowledge deficit. A contradiction here is that if we toss "matter" from the definition of the problem, that widens the scope of the problem and it becomes more expensive to investigate the issue. Despite the fact that we have no evidence that some new class of exotica is responsible for what we observe. Science is pretty sure that the solution is not invisible pink fairies, but invisible pink fairies are technically dark, so do we spend money on searches for them? You can assume anything you want, but we're trying deal in facts and realities here. You have no evidence that the search for DM is being restricted in any way, you are just assuming that it is. Without any evidence, this is just so much hot air. If this is a real problem, you should be able to show that this has happened in the past, with some research that eventually found what it was looking for. For you to prove that this incorrect scientific procedure in defining properly doesn't cause undue delay in solving the problem. That then is a probatio diabolica. You must strive in science for perfect definitions; period. You can't afford even the slightest risk that it indeed does pose a problem. Especially on key issues as DM. (and DE, and TOE and GR & QM as to not containing laws are all incorrectly defined (TOE by some and not Wiki see below).) You can't assume that this is incorrect procedure if that's what you are trying to prove. That's begging the question, a logical fallacy. It is your proposal, so the burden of proof is on you. (Something happened to the quote box: quote) Since this is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, your conclusion is invalid. It's also wrong: GPS works, for example. How can that be, if incorrect procedure is followed? end quote; edit: I don't see why it is invalid to state that we only observe measured time slow down as a more correct way of stating the observation as opposed to time slowing down. (Again that depends on how you define "time" again wrong definition if you were to define that as being what the clock reads.It leads to incorrect conclusions that when you exceed c you travel back in time which being deemed impossible leads to the subsequent error of thinking that c = max. And if it isn't, that then leads to a conundrum we're in now. Start funding research in speeds > c as well. Edit 2: Defining time to be what the clock reads means that we can already travel back in time. I.e. by plane in crossing the time zones we then fly back in time. With time defined as a physical reality it isn't possible to travel back in time because that causes a contradiction. The probability of which is smaller than having a God because that doesn't constitute a logical contradiction (even though extremely unlikely as well but far less so.) So yes, it is important to keep the definitions in order. I will once again point out that this is related to a knowledge deficit. There are good reasons not to waste money funding lots of research into superluminal phenomena, but knowing why requires that you learn some physics and gain knowledge about the scope of physics research that has already happened. Well with GPS obviously a sufficiently correct scientific procedure was followed. But there was no (as far as I'm aware) fundamental research required into GR, SR, QM or FT. These as far as needed could be taken of the shelf so to speak. So I'm not wrong. You're "not wrong" insofar as your definition is malleable and allows for self-fulfillment, i.e a tautology: any research that works is adequately defined. The problem with such a definition is that for any research, there is a time when the answer has not been reached. So if you haven't found the answer, how can you be sure it's simply because research takes time, and requires enabling technologies? The structure of the atom required numerous experiments to tease out the details. Prior to getting to that answer, it seems your claim would be an improper definition of the problem. And you would be wrong. I.e. the problem that I'm pointing to is a common psychological problem that runs right trough any society. Take it as the "laws" of history that history (of science as well) repeats itself. (Because we don't learn from the past, because we now know of DNA we could start to) And the "law" of history that what is forward will become backwards. Then, again, I'm not saying that everything is wrong in science either. (Take GPS as you correctly point out.) It's a bit like Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson's "The Best is..." when comparing a tractor with a Ferrari. Current scientific method can be seen as a tractor. Slow but steady low risk progress. I don't state that we should stop in doing that. What I'm opposing as an incorrect scientific procedure is not also using the Ferrari when you think you see a road that is quicker. Putting our present day Einsteins, Newtons, and Leonardo da Vinci physicists or closest that we can find (all open minded cranks BTW) in a team with the goal: get us to a TOE before the decade is out and here's the funding, will render results. Especially if you explicitly make it clear to everyone that a lot of failed attempts are taken for granted. So I'm not suggesting that all funding be done this way. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially not because this then is the new to be tested correct scientific method. The latter BTW being both: you keep doing the tractor AND the Ferrari method because only that is the correct scientific procedure. It's doing BOTH and not just one with the exclusion of the other because that is being un-scientific. If Mother Nature is indeed - what I'm convinced of - an illusionist, then it must be possible to fairly quickly ascertain what illusions she is playing at. The solution will in the end if found with out a doubt be deemed idiotically crank by current standards yet extremely simple with hindsight. If you are indeed convinced that this is indeed what MN is doing, or even if you think it possible then the fast high risk Ferrari method is the essential and premier correct scientific method to be done ASAP (on fundamental issues like this.). This because Mother Nature is a mass murderer and getting to a TOE quicker than later will - I'm convinced - save - a lot - of lives and suffering. THAT'S SCIENCE! as in correct scientific procedure. No, that's not science. Some of that is politics and some of it is pure guesswork and naiveté on your part. It's also self-contradictory — you want to minimize spending but also want to fund cranks; you talk of perfectly defining a problem and admit that solutions will only seem obvious in hindsight. Can't have it both ways. 1
kristalris Posted February 8, 2013 Author Posted February 8, 2013 Now Swansont let’s get some things straight, as a point of order in debate: Science is scientific because it has rules. You are part of science if you adhere to them, and it is scientifically incorrect procedure when you don’t. In shorthand then the rules in general as I understand them: Procedure is per definition formal and not material. Rules on definitions: no biased definitions of problems. Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem isagainst the formal rules of science, because it’s biased.Rules on evidence & standards of proof and burdens of proof: Proving a formal infringement on the rules may assume (= taken as proven if convinced undue risk) of having material effect. This because formal rules without assumed material effect would be meaningless. He who states a position must prove the position => the one stating position: “moot i.e.: no risk of material effect (given a formal infringement” is the one who carries the burden of proof of that position. As this site correctly has defined fora: On a probandum with holes in the data, these holes – must - be logically filled in – by science - with philosophy on inherently un-falsifiable questions. Standard of proof: word salad logic suffices, mathematics if possible allowed. On falsifiable (potentially testable) issues speculation is allowed. Same standard of proof for idea or concept (= speculative) level, if shown testable. Standard of proof when using word salad: close is close enough, unless perfection can be attained. Perfection =/= absolute proof but potentially mathematical proof that all highest possible norms have been fully met. Rules on proper scientific debate: no fallacies => incorrect claiming of a fallacy = a fallacy of logic. Fallacy begging the question = ( probandum A ; evidence A => proof A). You don’t disprove a probandum by disproving another, or query a probandum when having the burden of proof because it being a probatio diabolica. Fallacy of authority = (prior odds = posterior odds). Straw man = ( statement by A: (Problem doesn’t fit the law) counter by B => statement A (Law is incorrect) )The goal of science (science as defined earlier) is to find the truth (= knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions) of everything possible as quickly as possible, with the least cost, effort and risk in the broadest sense in an orderly way, yet accepting great cost, effort and risk, whereby finding this truth has the highest possible priority within science.Being/seeming naive and open is proper scientific procedure in the inductive faze as is the subsequent necessity of being conscientious in the rigorous (mathematical) scrutiny in the deductive faze of research.Do we agree that these are the proper rules of science as a condition sine qua non for correct scientific procedure sec and thus also of physics? If not, then we must first debate these. If you do, then I’ll react to your previous post in detail. Unless you wish to rephrase them in lieu of this post? We can of course also let that be if you agree with these rules and see a fresh how this works out for physics especially. Then to the anonymous cookie monster who has been distributing cookies: it would be nice if you did it on the record so that I can duly thank you for providing credence to my point that fear for losing one’s cookies helps sustain taboo’s and thereby hinder the progress of science. Not that I’m against anonymous liking / disliking, yet it did recently cross my mind that it should in fact be considered bad form to do so. Not everybody is like I not bothered by it. And, it is always nice to know if it's an authoritative or tough cookie or not.
swansont Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Now Swansont let’s get some things straight, as a point of order in debate: Science is scientific because it has rules. You are part of science if you adhere to them, and it is scientifically incorrect procedure when you don’t. In shorthand then the rules in general as I understand them: Procedure is per definition formal and not material. Rules on definitions: no biased definitions of problems. Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem isagainst the formal rules of science, because it’s biased. It's not biased if the answer is defining the scope of the problem, because it's already known. If someone wants to investigate gravity it's OK to define the problem so that E&M is not part of it. Calling dark matter dark matter is not a bias, it is an acknowledgement of the boundary conditions of the problem. We already know we are looking for matter that does not interact electromagnetically. Your level of familiarity with the problem is not the metric to be used here. Rules on evidence & standards of proof and burdens of proof: Proving a formal infringement on the rules may assume (= taken as proven if convinced undue risk) of having material effect. This because formal rules without assumed material effect would be meaningless. He who states a position must prove the position => the one stating position: “moot i.e.: no risk of material effect (given a formal infringement” is the one who carries the burden of proof of that position. Not sure what you're saying. This reads like legalese. As this site correctly has defined fora: On a probandum with holes in the data, these holes – must - be logically filled in – by science - with philosophy on inherently un-falsifiable questions. Standard of proof: word salad logic suffices, mathematics if possible allowed. On falsifiable (potentially testable) issues speculation is allowed. Same standard of proof for idea or concept (= speculative) level, if shown testable. Standard of proof when using word salad: close is close enough, unless perfection can be attained. Perfection =/= absolute proof but potentially mathematical proof that all highest possible norms have been fully met. If it's un-falsifiable it's not science. Word salad does not suffice; mathematics, if possible, is preferred. It is the only way to make specific predictions. Rules on proper scientific debate: no fallacies => incorrect claiming of a fallacy = a fallacy of logic. Fallacy begging the question = ( probandum A ; evidence A => proof A). You don’t disprove a probandum by disproving another, or query a probandum when having the burden of proof because it being a probatio diabolica. Fallacy of authority = (prior odds = posterior odds). Straw man = ( statement by A: (Problem doesn’t fit the law) counter by B => statement A (Law is incorrect) ) Indeed. You should not use fallacies. The goal of science (science as defined earlier) is to find the truth (= knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions) of everything possible as quickly as possible, with the least cost, effort and risk in the broadest sense in an orderly way, yet accepting great cost, effort and risk, whereby finding this truth has the highest possible priority within science. The goal of science is to accurately discover and model how nature behaves. Speed, cost, effort, risk, etc. are political constraints and also subjective. Being/seeming naive and open is proper scientific procedure in the inductive faze as is the subsequent necessity of being conscientious in the rigorous (mathematical) scrutiny in the deductive faze of research. Naive? No. That excuses lack of knowledge about the subject one is investigating. 1
ACG52 Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Not sure what you're saying. This reads like legalese. Kristalris is a lawyer, with no scientific education.
kristalris Posted February 8, 2013 Author Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Kristalris is a lawyer, with no scientific education. It's like Cluedo: let me guess: Cookie monster is Sir Flamelot? And, you got it wrong again then. It's not biased if the answer is defining the scope of the problem, because it's already known. If someone wants to investigate gravity it's OK to define the problem so that E&M is not part of it. Calling dark matter dark matter is not a bias, it is an acknowledgement of the boundary conditions of the problem. We already know we are looking for matter that does not interact electromagnetically. Your level of familiarity with the problem is not the metric to be used here. Ah, forgot to state the rule that dodging the issue isn't allowed either in proper scientific procedure on debating an issue. No worries here: you're not allowed to. Okay have it your way: we'll go through the tedious task of checkmating the one that doesn't know when to topple his King. Science is systematic. We'll further reduce the issue: general rules excluding physics. We'll come to that later. (As to the rest, don't worry) Rules on definitions: Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science. Simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice to state the prior rule. Of course every rule has exceptions but we'll come to them later in a systematic way. As science dictates. Edited February 8, 2013 by kristalris
swansont Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Ah, forgot to state the rule that dodging the issue isn't allowed either in proper scientific procedure on debating an issue. No worries here: you're not allowed to. No worries. If I am not proposing any issues, there is nothing to dodge. Okay have it your way: we'll go through the tedious task of checkmating the one that doesn't know when to topple his King. Science is systematic. We'll further reduce the issue: general rules excluding physics. We'll come to that later. (As to the rest, don't worry) Rules on definitions: Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science. Simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice to state the prior rule. Of course every rule has exceptions but we'll come to them later in a systematic way. As science dictates. You weren't kidding when you said you were going the tedious route. "No" If you need clarification, I refer you to the answer I have already given. If you want a counterexample, I will use the one you have already accepted as a valid definition of the scope of a problem: Kennedy said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade. We did not have to discover the moon, or a means to go (or discover the length of time of a decade), in order to make that happen. Thus the definition of the problem included part of the answer. Contradiction. Your rule is false.
kristalris Posted February 8, 2013 Author Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) No worries. If I am not proposing any issues, there is nothing to dodge. You weren't kidding when you said you were going the tedious route. "No" If you need clarification, I refer you to the answer I have already given. If you want a counterexample, I will use the one you have already accepted as a valid definition of the scope of a problem: Kennedy said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade. We did not have to discover the moon, or a means to go (or discover the length of time of a decade), in order to make that happen. Thus the definition of the problem included part of the answer. Contradiction. Your rule is false. Question is this rule correct as a general rule : Rules on definitions: Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science. Your answer: "No" You subsequently provided an - even invalid - exception. General rules are general rules because they deal with most cases. The exceptions to the rule deal - per definition - with less frequent cases. It is a fallacy of logic to try and refute a general rule via giving only exceptions, worse still via giving only one exception, and worst of all topping this with an invalid exception. Now first of all you provide something that is like I already stated an exception at best, i.e. - one - counter example; and even that is as said invalid. The existence via observation of the moon wasn't part of the problem. Observation of "Dark" i.e. unobserved stuff inherently is. And, you can only limit the scope of a problem if you don't leave part then of the problem unattended/ undefined Science is about dealing with the whole problem. Edited February 8, 2013 by kristalris
Ringer Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Let me ask you this, and please answer concisely, what do you believe the definition of matter is?
kristalris Posted February 9, 2013 Author Posted February 9, 2013 Let me ask you this, and please answer concisely, what do you believe the definition of matter is? Ah, the mentioned Dark stuff doesn't concern physics, because we would come back to that later, remember? But indeed your question does strike at the heart of it: what indeed is the matter? To understand this you must be aware of the history and goal of the thread as clearly stated in the title. You must understand the intricacies of word salad used as a "mathematical language" of logic so to speak. What are it's strength's and weaknesses? When and how do you apply it? What has it to do with psychology? My point is that it must be rigorously back to basics for mathematics that is applying what I call the rules of string and stick on a sandy beach. For physics I'll add the sand clock. Anyway if you don't, I'm convinced Mother (of human, as well) Nature will have you for breakfast in reaching your goal in a timely, cheap and easy way. See it as what would happen when a worker on the production line of the Sabre were to say to the other workers: oh lets not chafe our fingers anymore but put the bolts in upside down. That's better for all. That would if and when the point is pushed hard be resisted with religious fervor as psychology shows. If the one that defends the point of production gets corenerd, others will feel compelled to come to the aid. Very good in production, yet not so in research. Because then it might indeed be better to do so with the bolt and produce 12 in stead of 10 planes a month, that also can roll faster giving the edge in combat. In stead of crashing. So after the game of cat and mouse with Swansont ends in him having to change his "No" into an unequivocal "YES", I'll let him of the hook if he likes and immediately return to his comfort zone of physics. And then I'll answer your question as well. -2
Ophiolite Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Let's examine the issue of psychology you feel is so important. I suspect when a physicist contemplates research into dark matter she does not think this: Dark matter? Now there is an issue that deserves some consideration. Dark? Matter? Yes, this will take quite a bit of work. Rather she thinks this: Aha! A problem. Looks like a challenging one. Best get to work. The name accorded it does not impact on how the problem is approached, because the name is overwhelmed, by several orders of magnitude, by the problem. In seeking funding the relevance of finding a solution is what is important, not what shorthand vehicle is used to identify it. 1
ACG52 Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Ah, the mentioned Dark stuff doesn't concern physics, because we would come back to that later, remember? But indeed your question does strike at the heart of it: what indeed is the matter? To understand this you must be aware of the history and goal of the thread as clearly stated in the title. You must understand the intricacies of word salad used as a "mathematical language" of logic so to speak. What are it's strength's and weaknesses? When and how do you apply it? What has it to do with psychology? My point is that it must be rigorously back to basics for mathematics that is applying what I call the rules of string and stick on a sandy beach. For physics I'll add the sand clock. Anyway if you don't, I'm convinced Mother (of human, as well) Nature will have you for breakfast in reaching your goal in a timely, cheap and easy way. See it as what would happen when a worker on the production line of the Sabre were to say to the other workers: oh lets not chafe our fingers anymore but put the bolts in upside down. That's better for all. That would if and when the point is pushed hard be resisted with religious fervor as psychology shows. If the one that defends the point of production gets corenerd, others will feel compelled to come to the aid. Very good in production, yet not so in research. Because then it might indeed be better to do so with the bolt and produce 12 in stead of 10 planes a month, that also can roll faster giving the edge in combat. In stead of crashing. So after the game of cat and mouse with Swansont ends in him having to change his "No" into an unequivocal "YES", I'll let him of the hook if he likes and immediately return to his comfort zone of physics. And then I'll answer your question as well. This is a troll. -1
kristalris Posted February 9, 2013 Author Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Let's examine the issue of psychology you feel is so important. I suspect when a physicist contemplates research into dark matter she does not think this: Dark matter? Now there is an issue that deserves some consideration. Dark? Matter? Yes, this will take quite a bit of work. Rather she thinks this: Aha! A problem. Looks like a challenging one. Best get to work. The name accorded it does not impact on how the problem is approached, because the name is overwhelmed, by several orders of magnitude, by the problem. In seeking funding the relevance of finding a solution is what is important, not what shorthand vehicle is used to identify it. Now the point in discussion was - with the temporary exclusion of physics - what the general rule is. An infringement thereof lays the burden of proof on the one who states an exception on that rule. So then prove your position that physics should be exempt from this rule. Now before we further examine your view on psychology. Current textbook science of psychology though not explicitly written on the psyche of physicists as far as I'm aware of is quite clear that it doesn't quite work the way you think. History shows it to be different as well BTW. In science general the burden of proof is on you. So why would physics be any different? I'm touching on the core beliefs of a group i.e. physicists. Science on this is sum-mend up I just found quite nicely in the following link on paradigm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm And you clearly don't agree with the following: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Paradigm What usually then happens is that the one who gets pushed against his paradigm gets anxious and thinks the one who does that is out to get an emotional response. And think it a Troll in internet slang. Whereas a rational response is hoped for (yet not expected especially from cookie monsters) That's the current science on this issue. And the pure rational is that I nowhere in this thread made any fallacy whatsoever. As I see no further reaction from Swansont pending we can I guess subsequently that we should see what this means for and what changes are in order in physics given this current scientific view on the issue. BTW do you agree with Swansont who - if I understand him correctly - in fact stated that it would't be worth the effort to fund the present day teamed up Einsteins, Newton's etc. set on a goal of reaching (the systematic) TOE within the decade? This should be worth it if one can't rule out the possibility of MN being an illusionist: i.e. that there are a relative few mathematically based systems of particles at the heart of it all. Can current physics prove that that is not the case? And, isn't the SM a model of former unicorns? Big jumps in science don't happen often because they aren't usually being organised because the paradigm opposes. If the leader for instance says lets go the moon, or lets get to a TOE that will change current science on psychology as does history clearly show. Edit: and again I agree with the observational evidence that Dark matter exists, I don't agree with the definition, that shows incorrect procedure: As do a lot of other definitions physicists use. Again for you to prove that these incorrect definitions don't slow down progress. Edited February 9, 2013 by kristalris
swansont Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Now the point in discussion was - with the temporary exclusion of physics - what the general rule is. An infringement thereof lays the burden of proof on the one who states an exception on that rule. So then prove your position that physics should be exempt from this rule. Your proposal. Your burden of proof. BTW do you agree with Swansont who - if I understand him correctly - in fact stated that it would't be worth the effort to fund the present day teamed up Einsteins, Newton's etc. set on a goal of reaching (the systematic) TOE within the decade? I can't fathom the tortured logic and mental gymnastics that would lead you to interpret my position in this way. edit: see below
kristalris Posted February 9, 2013 Author Posted February 9, 2013 Your proposal. Your burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins by definingsimultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all." Einstein's paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Francis Crick cautions us that when characterizing a subject, however, it can be premature to define something when it remains ill-understood.[53] In Crick's study of consciousness, he actually found it easier to study awareness in the visual system, rather than to study free will, for example. His cautionary example was the gene; the gene was much more poorly understood before Watson and Crick's pioneering discovery of the structure of DNA; it would have been counterproductive to spend much time on the definition of the gene, before them. You carry the burden to prove that the infringement on the general rule not to put the answer in the question of a definition, has no consequence, the way this history of science on this topic on scientific burden of evidence in this Wikipedia link clearly shows as well.
swansont Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 You carry the burden to prove that the infringement on the general rule not to put the answer in the question of a definition, has no consequence, the way this history of science on this topic on scientific burden of evidence in this Wikipedia link clearly shows as well. You haven't shown that this general rule is correct. You are assuming it, which is begging the question. No logical fallacies allowed, remember? BTW, the definition in the wikipedia article refers to specific terminology, not the scope of the problem.
kristalris Posted February 9, 2013 Author Posted February 9, 2013 I can't fathom the tortured logic and mental gymnastics that would lead you to interpret my position in this way. Qoute of mine Putting our present day Einsteins, Newtons, and Leonardo da Vinci physicists or closest that we can find (all open minded cranks BTW) in a team with the goal: get us to a TOE before the decade is out and here's the funding, will render results. Especially if you explicitly make it clear to everyone that a lot of failed attempts are taken for granted. So I'm not suggesting that all funding be done this way. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially not because this then is the new to be tested correct scientific method. The latter BTW being both: you keep doing the tractor AND the Ferrari method because only that is the correct scientific procedure. It's doing BOTH and not just one with the exclusion of the other because that is being un-scientific. If Mother Nature is indeed - what I'm convinced of - an illusionist, then it must be possible to fairly quickly ascertain what illusions she is playing at. The solution will in the end if found with out a doubt be deemed idiotically crank by current standards yet extremely simple with hindsight. If you are indeed convinced that this is indeed what MN is doing, or even if you think it possible then the fast high risk Ferrari method is the essential and premier correct scientific method to be done ASAP (on fundamental issues like this.). This because Mother Nature is a mass murderer and getting to a TOE quicker than later will - I'm convinced - save - a lot - of lives and suffering. THAT'S SCIENCE! as in correct scientific procedure. Your reaction: No, that's not science. Some of that is politics and some of it is pure guesswork and naiveté on your part. It's also self-contradictory — you want to minimize spending but also want to fund cranks; you talk of perfectly defining a problem and admit that solutions will only seem obvious in hindsight. Can't have it both ways. Remember? What did you mean then?
swansont Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 No, that's not science. Some of that is politics and some of it is pure guesswork and naiveté on your part. It's also self-contradictory — you want to minimize spending but also want to fund cranks; you talk of perfectly defining a problem and admit that solutions will only seem obvious in hindsight. Can't have it both ways. Remember? What did you mean then? Sure I remember. I retract my prior statement — I misread "would't" (sic) as would, rather than "wouldn't" 1
kristalris Posted February 9, 2013 Author Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) You haven't shown that this general rule is correct. You are assuming it, which is begging the question. No logical fallacies allowed, remember? Oh I didn't understand that you contested the general rule that you are not allowed to put the answer in the question. That fallacy by the way is indeed begging the question. Of course except exceptions such as proven limitations in the scope of the problem. Well it is thus proven by logic. Contesting it is a fallacy of logic. And indeed that is not allowed. So no fallacy on my part but on your part then. The other rule is on burden of proof (unless you want to contest that to): he who states a position carries the burden of proof of that position. You claim an exception. Well then prove it. Limitations on the scope of the problem are allowed when proven. But they aren't proven they are the question. You physicists are begging the question. BTW, the definition in the wikipedia article refers to specific terminology, not the scope of the problem. The Wikipedia article perfectly fits and supports what I'm on about and it shows clearly that defining properly - especially in physics - is essential as these episodes of great progress in science show. That's right up my ally. So, stop arguing that it isn't important to get the basics such as definitions in order as if they are mere formalities. Or that they are in order where they clearly aren't. It's bloody important. Again psychology and history show it. As does logic. Edited February 9, 2013 by kristalris
Ophiolite Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Now the point in discussion was - with the temporary exclusion of physics - what the general rule is. An infringement thereof lays the burden of proof on the one who states an exception on that rule. So then prove your position that physics should be exempt from this rule. You have so far failed to establish the validity of such a rule. Now before we further examine your view on psychology. Current textbook science of psychology though not explicitly written on the psyche of physicists as far as I'm aware of is quite clear that it doesn't quite work the way you think. History shows it to be different as well BTW You have been asked by others in this thread to demonstrate the validity of your argument with historical examples. You have so far failed to do so. Will you do so now and if not, why not? I'm touching on the core beliefs of a group i.e. physicists. Science on this is sum-mend up I just found quite nicely in the following link on paradigm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm And you clearly don't agree with the following: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Paradigm We are not discussing paradigms. We are discussing your unsubstantiated assertion that an arbitrary name provisionally assigned to a phenomenom can have a primary effect upon how that phenomenom is investigated and funded. Thus far you have merely made repetitive assertions, but completely failed to provide supporting evidence. What usually then happens is that the one who gets pushed against his paradigm gets anxious and thinks the one who does that is out to get an emotional response. And think it a Troll in internet slang. Whereas a rational response is hoped for (yet not expected especially from cookie monsters) For the record, I am neither a physicist or an astrophysicist. I would not be surprised if future research showed dark matter did not exist. I should not be surprised if the opposite were to occur. I do know that there are observations that need to be accounted for. That is the central point: something does not quite fit and it does not matter one iota whether we call it Dark Matter or Prince Charles. And the pure rational is that I nowhere in this thread made any fallacy whatsoever. I never said you did. Are you unable to stay focused? BTW do you agree with Swansont who - if I understand him correctly - in fact stated that it would't be worth the effort to fund the present day teamed up Einsteins, Newton's etc. set on a goal of reaching (the systematic) TOE within the decade? This should be worth it if one can't rule out the possibility of MN being an illusionist: i.e. that there are a relative few mathematically based systems of particles at the heart of it all. Can current physics prove that that is not the case? I don't know that that is what SwansonT said. I have never considered the matter. I don't see in what way it is relevant to the central point that you are mistakenly according unwarranted importance to a name. And, isn't the SM a model of former unicorns? I have no idea what your abbreviation is. (Sometimes names are important.) Big jumps in science don't happen often because they aren't usually being organised because the paradigm opposes. If the leader for instance says lets go the moon, or lets get to a TOE that will change current science on psychology as does history clearly show. And you have failed to demonstrate that the name we accord a phenomenon impacts upon its associated paradigm. Edit: and again I agree with the observational evidence that Dark matter exists, I don't agree with the definition, that shows incorrect procedure: As do a lot of other definitions physicists use. Again for you to prove that these incorrect definitions don't slow down progress. No,. This is your lame idea. You have to justify it.
Ringer Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Ah, the mentioned Dark stuff doesn't concern physics, because we would come back to that later, remember? But indeed your question does strike at the heart of it: what indeed is the matter? [snipped]So I take this to mean you don't know the definition of the words concise or matter. Nor did you seem to define anything at all, so the definition of matter is something with mass. Gravity is a force that is directly related to mass. So what name should something have if it has gravitational interaction but can't be seen?
Recommended Posts