Correct Scientific Procedure, especially in Physics

[kristalris]

You have so far failed to establish the validity of such a rule.

 

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?

 

Talking about difficulty in staying focused, I just in the previous post of mine absolutely clenched the point on dark matter. Again then for you: Swansont said that I was making the fallacy of begging the question, by stating in effect the same as what you are stating now. Now you might indeed think that when I state a rule but fail to see that it is the actual rule that is in dispute that you could indeed think this. I.e. that I was begging the question.

 

The reason I failed to spot this is that it is so bloody obvious that I didn't spot it but for a moment after Swansont had got more and more cornered had switched to even explicitly disputing the validity of the stated rule.

 

Now the hilarious thing is, I too had failed to spot that calling the problem dark matter is in itself committing the fallacy of begging the question. It is thus quite literately begging the question using the title dark matter as such.

 

Now do you really want me to explain this in depth to you? It then would be a bit like explaining someone that it's already check and check mate over and over again.

 

Because the only line of defense open then is to dispute the rule in science that fallacies aren't allowed. Luckily however the site rules prohibit this as well.

 

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.

First of all again I don't carry the burden of proof in showing this on a point where a fallacy has been made, that fallacies are prohibited in science because they have a negative effect on science. Secondly I have shown evidence by the Wikipedia post on the burden of evidence in science and the history on just this subject in effect.

 

 

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.

You are a geologist I understand. Your position on dark matter is strange. Swansont stated - if I understand him correctly - that it limited the scope of the problem and thus the cost to fund research in the direction you think the answer might be sought. I.e. the non existence of dark matter. What if you are right, you wouldn't find that if it isn't funded now will you?

 

Now Ophiolite would it be help-full to call ophiolite Prince Charles instead because he resembles a crusted rock?

 

Actually I think we should call Dark Matter Dark Oort after the Dutch guy Jan Oort who I gather first postulated the problem.

I never said you did. Are you unable to stay focused?

Does your focusing entail that you think I was only in discussion with you and that I opposed others that did. Anyway thanks that you don't say I've committed any fallacy in this thread.

 

 

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.

Study a bit more psychology and the paradigm thread I gave you as the through link to confirmation bias then.

 

 

I have no idea what your abbreviation is. (Sometimes names are important.)

SM is in discussions on this topic as I understand it means Standard Model.

 

 

And you have failed to demonstrate that the name we accord a phenomenon impacts upon its associated paradigm.

 

 

No,. This is your lame idea. You have to justify it.

 

I had already done it, and for you especially I did it again. If it still isn't clear I'll be more than pleased to fully explain the fallacy of begging the question to you.

Let me ask you this, and please answer concisely, what do you believe the definition of matter is?

 

This about covers it:

 

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

 

The term "matter" is used throughout physics in a bewildering variety of contexts: for example, one refers to "condensed matter physics",^[87] "elementary matter",^[88] "partonic" matter, "dark" matter, "anti"-matter, "strange" matter, and "nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and antimatter, normal matter has been referred to by Alfvén as koinomatter.^[89] It is fair to say that inphysics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier.

 

 

How to define Dark Matter: well best then: Dark Oort after the guy who I gather first postulated the problem.

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?

Now you got that wrong then. I see that you're a double major in biology and psychology? Yet you chose to only pose argument on a definition problem concerning physics when physics was at that moment excluded from the discussion?

 

Well, I don't claim more on physics / astronomy & mathematics than high school science level. The basics there of I do claim to know and understand. The basics of which I see infringed upon. And have now proven to be so. Automatically not only DM but DE gets hit by the same fate.

 

The basics entail a rigorously applied taking into account only all observations, and accounting for all laws (if defined correctly including GR, SR, QM and FT (as containing these). Point is laws have their inherent limits. And to answer all relevant questions, even without data. The latter for instance answering the question whether Mother Nature is an illusionist or not? As I think she is.

 

This is what I call adhering to the rules of string and stick on a sandy beach as my maths teacher years ago explained that with this all - proper - mathematics can be done. If you take a sand clock along as well you can travel in your minds eye to any place or level in order to observe how it would look if you combine all these observations we know, and answer all questions as concise as possible. Staying with the guesswork as close as possible to analogies we readily observe in nature. In fact the game of Occam's razor.

 

That game is a means to an end to see where to start looking for TOE in order to figure out how to if possible be do some quick and dirty testing. And testing again in order to get more relevant data.

 

The limits of these laws (GR, SR, QM & FT) can be assumed to lie there where the atoms and sub atomic particles can't / don't exist. (Per definition then you get a sub sub atomic level) That could not only be outside our visible universe but also at a much smaller as yet un-observable level even within ourselves. There these laws of physics can be assumed to break down because they are based on the existence of just these observable particles that simply don't exist at that level.

 

Now what is time other than a convention we humans need in order to observe our world with string and stick, and sand clock? That in no way infringes on relativity taking that as a convention, that extremely accurately predicts what happens when we still have subatomic particles in reality. The convention (of relativity) however will never thus become that reality. It only accurately describes that reality within its limits. That doesn't mean you are subsequently allowed to extrapolate that outside our visible universe or to deeper as yet unobserved levels. Otherwise you end up in the Escher Institute believing that water streams upwards. A simple measurement problem is thus quite obvious.

 

This immediately means that you can have - and thus should consider and fund research into - speeds > c at this deeper level. Providing thus a very elegant and simple possible if not even probable explanation for the entanglement / Schrodinger's cat problem. The observations linked to that problem - are - the evidence for this. If you define it all correctly it becomes far more easy to see. There is thus no infringement on the laws of GR SR QM or FT just as there is no infringement of these latter on the laws of Newton.

 

The present dogma however call for physicists to immediately start screaming about fairies and unicorns. Forgetting the simple fact that even our present day atom and the entire standard Model is filled with former unicorns.

 

So also it is a problem to state that mass exerts gravity. It seems to me far better to define it so that matter per definition exerts gravity and has mass. So photons should't be called mass less but matter less. That we can't measure the volume of certain particles doesn't prove they haven't a volume. That more closely describes what you actually observe. That we haven't measured photons to have mass doesn't prove they don't have it just as my weight watchers scale reading zero when a marble is put on it proves the marble to be weight or even mass less. That photons don't exert gravity is observed at an extremely high observed level because light that is known to have traveled billions of years must have behaved differently, if even the slightest bit of gravity between photons would of existed.

 

That leaves some more very fundamental questions to be asked and answered if you want to get to a correctly defined TOE quickly: what are waves and is it all cyclic or not? Where does the order we observe come from, and why doesn't it disintegrate faster or how is it we observe pressure?

 

So: set our common goal, and set it high for all to see. that goals is TOE within the decade. Get the team in order using current insights of the science of psychology. The open minded cranks lead the team. And fund it. Stating to think out of the box but within the box of science. I.e. no fallacies, no magic et cetera. As Krauss et all is doing with his something from nothing. That is a contradiction and thus believing in magic.

 

Because wisdom is creative intelligence with relevant knowledge and experience using crowd sourcing via internet is a cheap because free way of getting a lot of work done filtering out idea's. This will work if the goal is stated like Kennedy stating that we should go to the moon within the decade. This will silence the unicorn stance prohibiting this at the moment.

Edited February 10, 2013 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

Your arguments are so twisted it is difficult to follow what you are saying. Your first response is a perfect example of word salad - a host of words that give the impression they might mean something, yet whose semantic content is zero.

 

Let us try to bring some clarity. I understand this is the rule we are discussing.

 

Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science.

 

There are two issues here:

1. You have not established that this is a rule of science. If you have provided clear, direct support for the existence and general acceptance of such a rule it has been deeply buried in your rammbling text. Please provide such evidence now.

2. Even if such a rule exists, it is irrelevant. Calling the issue of unexpected stellar orbital speeds Dark Matter is not defining the problem. It is simply assigning a name to the issue. Calling me Ophiolite does not define me. I trust no one thinks I am an obducted slice of oceaninc crust.

 

Your failure to understand this, or to argue in any coherent and effective way against renders your argument dead in the water.

 

 

 

 

Ophiolite, on 09 Feb 2013 - 19:34, said:

 

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.

 

First of all again I don't carry the burden of proof in showing this on a point where a fallacy has been made, that fallacies are prohibited in science because they have a negative effect on science. Secondly I have shown evidence by the Wikipedia post on the burden of evidence in science and the history on just this subject in effect.

What! Before any one responded to anything you had said you had made the claim that an arbitrary name provisionally assigned to a phenomenom can have a primary effect upon how that phenomenom is investigated and funded. Please answer these questions with simple yes and no answers.

 

Do you deny that this claim was made by you?

Do you deny that this claim is the guts of your argument?

Do you accept that no matter what others may have subsequently said the responsibility for supporting this assertion rests with you?

 

 

Now Ophiolite would it be help-full to call ophiolite Prince Charles instead because he resembles a crusted rock?

As I have pointed out above it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. I am known as Ophiolite on this forum, Eclogite on others, and John Galt on others. None of these arbitrary names have any impact on who I am or upon what I post.

 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

William Shakespeare

 

 

Does your focusing entail that you think I was only in discussion with you and that I opposed others that did. Anyway thanks that you don't say I've committed any fallacy in this thread.

I have read every exchange within this thread. However, when you begin responding to remarks, assertions, evidence and questions raised by others when you are supposedly responding to my questions or remarks, and avoid or delay addressing my question, then I do need to question your focus.

 

 

Study a bit more psychology and the paradigm thread I gave you as the through link to confirmation bias then.

I have been a fan of Khun's thesis for decades. I am fully aware of the nature of confirmation bias. Neither have application here in the use of an arbitrary name. That is the single point you continue to avoid. You have not demonstrated that a name constitutes the definition of a problem. (Here is a helpful hint: it doesn't)

[swansont]

 

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.

 

*sigh*

 

You stated the general rule and I objected, you asked me a yes or no question and I answered, and now you have the gall to claim that you didn't know that I am contesting the rule? That strains credulity.

 

You have to do better than assert that your claim is correct and appeal to as-yet-undemonstrated logic. Contesting your claim and showing counterexamples in NOT a fallacy.

 

 

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.

 

I dont claim an exception, as the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one making a claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence that the claim is true. This has been pointed out to you before.

 

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.

 

 

 

The part of your little manifesto that is being contended concerns defining the scope or parameters of a problem. An article discussing terminology is moving the goalposts (another logical fallacy)

 

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.

 

Perhaps you should re-read the thread, to re-focus on what the points of contention are. I'm tired of repeating them.

 

___

 

 

I will once again point to the investigation into the discovery of the neutrino as a counterexample. The name (originally neutron, but later changed to neutrino) demands that it not have charge, so the answer was part of the definition. The proposed rule is flat-out wrong.

[Bignose]

Make sure no one tells him that people are looking for WIMPs in the search for dark matter. That name will blow his socks off!

[kristalris]

Your arguments are so twisted it is difficult to follow what you are saying. Your first response is a perfect example of word salad - a host of words that give the impression they might mean something, yet whose semantic content is zero.

Like this sentence of yours. Which first response do you mean?

Let us try to bring some clarity. I understand this is the rule we are discussing.

 

Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science.

 

There are two issues here:

1. You have not established that this is a rule of science. If you have provided clear, direct support for the existence and general acceptance of such a rule it has been deeply buried in your rammbling text. Please provide such evidence now.

Again: the rule is called the fallacy of begging the question. Probandum (or question) in part A : evidence in part A answer in part A is a fallacy of logic.

 

A problem poses a question in science that begs for evidence and proof. If you already give the answer (or part of it) as evidence and subsequent answer you commit this fallacy.

 

Do you want proof that using fallacies is against the formal and accepted rules of science?

 

If you had focused properly you would of spotted this easily.

2. Even if such a rule exists, it is irrelevant. Calling the issue of unexpected stellar orbital speeds Dark Matter is not defining the problem. It is simply assigning a name to the issue. Calling me Ophiolite does not define me. I trust no one thinks I am an obducted slice of oceaninc crust.

Ah no, and again: the title of a definition can be seen as part of it: Dark matter = not in some way to be seen as matter that is dark? You would be right if it was titled Dark Oort, as I again and again have stated. But it isn't and it should of been.

Your failure to understand this, or to argue in any coherent and effective way against renders your argument dead in the water.

 

 

What! Before any one responded to anything you had said you had made the claim that an arbitrary name provisionally assigned to a phenomenom can have a primary effect upon how that phenomenom is investigated and funded. Please answer these questions with simple yes and no answers.

 

Do you deny that this claim was made by you?

No, yet I haven't reread the thread to see exactly where. Please provide the number of the post.

Do you deny that this claim is the guts of your argument?

If you put it like that yes. It's part of the guts of the argument.

Do you accept that no matter what others may have subsequently said the responsibility for supporting this assertion rests with you?

Yes, and I have already done that. Again: In using "Dark matter" in the title you commit a fallacy (see above) that CAN have primary effect etc.. For you then to disprove this proof based on the proof of a committed fallacy.

As I have pointed out above it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. I am known as Ophiolite on this forum, Eclogite on others, and John Galt on others. None of these arbitrary names have any impact on who I am or upon what I post.

 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

William Shakespeare

I reacted to your irrelevant joke with an irrelevant joke, that you now take serious. I see you're now resorting to quotes of Shakespeare to clarify this issue? I don't think it's going to do that, so we'll leave William out of it shall we?

I have read every exchange within this thread. However, when you begin responding to remarks, assertions, evidence and questions raised by others when you are supposedly responding to my questions or remarks, and avoid or delay addressing my question, then I do need to question your focus.

No, you should have been more patient. And if impatience got the better of you, you should have reminded me first. And you should of focused more beforehand.

I have been a fan of Khun's thesis for decades. I am fully aware of the nature of confirmation bias. Neither have application here in the use of an arbitrary name. That is the single point you continue to avoid. You have not demonstrated that a name constitutes the definition of a problem. (Here is a helpful hint: it doesn't)

 

Well I have again done that, see above. Further more, I wonder: if you were arrested and before being tried and convicted your police dossier would be titled the Dark Ophiolite, if your name was indeed Ophiolite? Even if there were no more other suspects. I wonder what your full awareness of the nature of confirmation bias then in seeing the application of this arbitrary name to your dossier indeed therein just defining you to be the suspect, would yield? Being such a staunch fan of Khun's thesis. Wonder what Khun would of made of that, and the title Dark Matter for that matter? Care to guess?

 

Maybe some more focusing by you on that thesis is in order?

 

 

 

Further more if we look at the Wikipedia page on Matter stating that a "bewildering variety" of definitions thereof exist you then see that the definition problem clearly exists. This where science is per definition to be executed in a systematic way. Although not my job not being a physicist or scientist I think I can do better taking the Wikipedia page as being correct. The definition of matter would start off with: exerts gravity, the amount of which is in a linear (?) way related to the always present mass except concerning anomalies observed in galaxies not disintegrating and accelerating (the latter conform the law of Hubble). It has volume except..... and that is how far I got up till now. Anyway a definition should be possible to provide science on the deepest level with one definition of matter. Anyway that would immediately knock the title Dark Matter out. This because there are evidently several dark matter problems. Haven't got time now got to go.

[swansont]

Again: the rule is called the fallacy of begging the question. Probandum (or question) in part A : evidence in part A answer in part A is a fallacy of logic.

 

Science is not the same as logic. Specifically, science does not use logic as the basis of evidence that it is correct. Logic may appear as part of the process.

 

Ah no, and again: the title of a definition can be seen as part of it: Dark matter = not in some way to be seen as matter that is dark? You would be right if it was titled Dark Oort, as I again and again have stated. But it isn't and it should of been

 

I find it interesting that you repeatedly object to the use of "matter" but not "dark". That seems inconsistent.

[kristalris]

Science is not the same as logic. Specifically, science does not use logic as the basis of evidence that it is correct. Logic may appear as part of the process.

I never said or even implied anything different. Fallacious reasoning is Illogical reasoning. Using fallacies is unscientific. Dark matter as a title of this problem is a fallacy and thus unscientific at any level seeing the problem. That's why I chose that one to show evidence of a broader problem of sloppy definitions which I mentioned earlier. If you were for instance to use the title Dark Matter for all problems concerning matter it would't pose a problem. The proof of that is on the one who uses the title on this problem.

 

I didn't at first grasp what you were on about. See it as I state 2 + 2 =/= 5. You say he prove it. I say well 2 + 2 = 4. Then you say that doesn't prove that 2 + 2 =/= 5 is correct. Well, that may be but he, can you understand that I have a bit of a problem then ascertaining what you are on about? I'm not in the business of computer programming. As I'm trying to convince humans.

I find it interesting that you repeatedly object to the use of "matter" but not "dark". That seems inconsistent.

Well indeed if I were a zealot or puritan that would be. Yet, I'm not. I even would oppose that. Word salad should't be used that way. It is up to a degree inherently vague or ambiguous. Which is good at the concept level! Because there close is close enough. When however an extreme or exact degree of exactness is needed to play the zealot you must convert to another "language" the unambiguous language of mathematics. (No, that doesn't mean or imply that mathematicians are to be deemed zealots.)

 

I.e. word salad only goes "so far" so to speak. When the problem is inherently vague you can (sometimes even best) use word salad and not mathematics (though the latter is always allowed). That again doesn't mean that you can just muck around with word salad either. It has psychological consequences even for physicists IMO. But if I catch physicists out on fallacies the burden to disprove is on them. I.e. word salad isn't that vague either. It has an appropriate bandwidth of exactness so to speak. Using scientific definitions you are at the top end. But then again don't overdo it. Proof is ultimately conviction driven.

 

Like I stated earlier only if you are convinced that it might indeed pose a problem, should you oppose. (Otherwise you are indeed a zealot) That however doesn't then constitute a burden of proof because that has been met by the proof of the prior fallacy.

 

I have yet to find time to provide a better definition of matter that applies even at the current deepest level. But physicists should be red at the cheeks ashamed of themselves that they can't provide a good definition for matter given the current state of affairs. It is simply describing accepted observations and anomalies in a concise systematic way. I guess that it will lead if done correctly to calling photons matter less in stead of mass less for instance. I.e. we can observe them not to exert gravity, but we don't know whether they don't have as yet undetected mass. If you define GR, SR and QM correctly as laws (a zealot would then say that they only contain them, and physicists at the moment would incorrectly deny them containing laws.) you can't be sure that these are valid at a level where the particles that are observed to comply to these laws may not exist any more. And, again the history I showed that incorrect definitions played a role in not identifying the solutions that Einstein provided.

 

The reason that "Dark" doesn't pose that much of a problem is that it only states a problem. No-one would contest the correctness of that I gather. I'm convinced it doesn't, yet indeed I could be wrong.

Edited February 11, 2013 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

Here are three disparate points:

 

1. Please follow your own rules and conside that your use of the phrase 'word salad' is incorrect and is leading you to make nonsensical statements when using it.

 

2. You continue to assert that the character of the name is an integral part of the definition. You have never done anything other than assert this. You have not demonstrated it to be true. It isn't. Since you are intransigent upon this point I see no value in discussing it further with you.

 

3. As one who is aware of some of the principles of psychology you will be undersstand that your repeated reference to focus following my suggestion that your response were unfocused reveals a great deal about you. Thank you for that useful insight.

 

And finally, for me this exchange is no longer productive. Your premises, logic flow and conclusions are flawed. You persistently fail to justify your assertions. Good luck.

[kristalris]

Here are three disparate points:

 

1. Please follow your own rules and conside that your use of the phrase 'word salad' is incorrect and is leading you to make nonsensical statements when using it.

You mist the re-appropriation bit I guess. That's word salad for ya then ain't it? Loss of focus?

2. You continue to assert that the character of the name is an integral part of the definition. You have never done anything other than assert this. You have not demonstrated it to be true. It isn't. Since you are intransigent upon this point I see no value in discussing it further with you.

Well, I have demonstrated and even proven that it is, but what compromise would you like to reach?

3. As one who is aware of some of the principles of psychology you will be undersstand that your repeated reference to focus following my suggestion that your response were unfocused reveals a great deal about you. Thank you for that useful insight.

 

Glad that I've contributed to your psychoanalysis of me. Funny the way psychologists always resort to this when discussing a subject after getting cornered by anyone. BTW what DSM number should pun on focus hold according to Higgens? And, what does your reaction to my pun on focus say about you? Ever heard of an argument ad hominem? Would you like me to explain this to you?

And finally, for me this exchange is no longer productive. Your premises, logic flow and conclusions are flawed. You persistently fail to justify your assertions. Good luck.

First sentence could indeed be. Second sentence is in starch contradiction to the third. In the end: likewise.

 

Make sure no one tells him that people are looking for WIMPs in the search for dark matter. That name will blow his socks off!

Bare foot is not for wimps but for heroes on socks. (Inside (Dutch) joke.)

 

Does this post of yours prove your point?

Edited February 11, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Well, I have demonstrated and even proven that it is, but what compromise would you like to reach?

 

Please stop saying you've proven things that you have merely asserted. It's gotten old.

[ACG52]

Kristalris is a lawyer, and seems to feel that if he throws enough words he's proven something.

Edited February 11, 2013 by ACG52

[swansont]

kristalris, on 11 Feb 2013 - 15:51, said:

I never said or even implied anything different. Fallacious reasoning is Illogical reasoning. Using fallacies is unscientific. Dark matter as a title of this problem is a fallacy and thus unscientific at any level seeing the problem. That's why I chose that one to show evidence of a broader problem of sloppy definitions which I mentioned earlier. If you were for instance to use the title Dark Matter for all problems concerning matter it would't pose a problem. The proof of that is on the one who uses the title on this problem.

Defining the scope of a problem is not a statement of or based solely on logic.

kristalris, on 11 Feb 2013 - 15:51, said:

And, again the history I showed that incorrect definitions played a role in not identifying the solutions that Einstein provided.

Um, where did you show this?

 

___

 

I'll say here what I said in another thread: I don't think you can validly criticize the research process if you are not familiar with the research process.

[kristalris]

Defining the scope of a problem is not a statement of or based solely on logic.

 

Um, where did you show this?

 

___

 

I'll say here what I said in another thread: I don't think you can validly criticize the research process if you are not familiar with the research process.

 

In reaction to this post and as promised earlier: definition of Matter and Mass. Followed by burden of proof and research and a bit on focus.

 

Definition of Matter & Mass (second attempt as work in progress):

 

Matter is often directly observable ,exerts gravity and usually has a measurable volume. De volume being determined by 3D space it occupies at different levels of observation. I.e. matter can be part of other matter as a particle. The amount of exerted gravity has a mathematically understood relationship with mass, that is always present in matter, except in an anomaly concerning non disintegrating galaxies. Another anomaly of matter concerns the accelerating away from us of galaxies the further away the faster.

 

Matter at a deeper level always moves relative to other matter, and there has well understood wavelengths the cause of which is unknown. The relationship of electromagnetism and matter is well understood, what magnetism is, is yet unknown.

 

Matter can be brought to further order via life forms, and acting as a fractal or as a crystal (and… ?). The deeper reasons for this is unknown. From our perspective there is however mounting disorder.

 

Mass is never directly observable and has an intricate mathematical relationship with energy and the speed of light as a law of nature (and currently thus incorrectly defined as to be only a theory). This law is observed to hold true as far as observable particles are concerned, baring observed anomalies. I.e. mass can fully disappear and reappear at that level of observation. Whether mass has volume or itself exerts gravity or is just the cause of gravity at a deeper level is unobservable at the moment.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The existence of anomalies even between laws of nature at observed levels show a measurement problem that dictates to search for hidden variables. Baring in mind that current laws of nature probably don’t apply at that level.

 

Mass-less particles such as photons are thus incorrectly defined and should be defined as being matter-less because they don’t exert gravity.

 

Dark matter is a correct title for the definition for all current and yet to be discovered anomalies concerning matter and incorrect as portraying only part of that as a general description of a problem via a disputable hypothesis on only one of the anomalies.

 

Dark energy is only a correct title for the definition of all anomalies that concern energy. Because all anomalies do, it is useless as a distinguishing title.

 

Even in this second attempt to properly define these issues it is clear that should have been clear since it was shown that incorrect definitions plagued science before Einstein, as shown in the earlier link in Wikipedia that defining the issue shows how to start a systematic search for TOE.

 

DM

 

To further prove the incorrectness of the term Dark Matter:

 

Fokker built the F27 Friendship aircraft and sold it to an African nation, where it was found that ants there liked to eat the glued aluminium structures that Fokker was the first to have used. Fokker changed the additives in the glue and swopped the sold planes. Now the question is, who then had to prove that the additives solved the problem? I.e. that the changed glue was up to spec and not yummied anymore by these ants? The one who pointed towards the existence of the problem or Fokker?

 

Of course the research department of Fokker did that and took care of it.

 

Now I pointed towards there being an illogical ant eating at the title Dark Matter as a begging the question fallacy. You, as Fokker, claim to have fixed the problem in order that the speediest expedition of science/ continuation of flights is unhindered.

You (et all) do this by showing that science is still progressing via Neutrino’s and Whimps. Does that prove the ** speediest ** expedition - being the probandum - for the one like Fokker carrying the burden of proof? No of course not.

 

FOCUS

 

Now there is the problem of focus. Mother Nature makes it so as current psychology shows that especially with people who are highly conscientious and low on openness even more so when they score high on alertness, communicating on a paradigm issue is walking an emotional tightrope. Usually in psychology / communication depicted by the analogy of the iceberg. The rational bit pops out and is visible the emotional bit is under water. As soon as even the slightest loss of focus is induced by one wrong word, tone of voice or whatever the most commonly held view in science at the moment is that this exerts a fear that blocks a fully rational response via an algorithm: “This is wrong, because:….” And, if that doesn’t work an emotional response is to be expected: anger, laughter mockery, etc. Excellent for survival of the species on production issues, a hindrance in proper research.

Edited February 13, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Matter at a deeper level always moves relative to other matter, and there has well understood wavelengths the cause of which is unknown.

 

What?

 

The relationship of electromagnetism and matter is well understood, what magnetism is, is yet unknown.

 

Um, no.

 

Mass is never directly observable and has an intricate mathematical relationship with energy and the speed of light as a law of nature (and currently thus incorrectly defined as to be only a theory).

 

The use of "only a theory" strongly suggests lack of knowledge of what is meant by theory.

 

This law is observed to hold true as far as observable particles are concerned, baring observed anomalies. I.e. mass can fully disappear and reappear at that level of observation.

 

What?

 

Mass-less particles such as photons are thus incorrectly defined and should be defined as being matter-less because they don’t exert gravity.

 

Electromagnetic radiation most certainly exerts gravity

 

Even in this second attempt to properly define these issues it is clear that should have been clear since it was shown that incorrect definitions plagued science before Einstein, as shown in the earlier link in Wikipedia that defining the issue shows how to start a systematic search for TOE.

 

You showed a few examples of terms being poorly defined. I don't know how this is a "plague" or what it has to do with the discussion.

 

Now I pointed towards there being an illogical ant eating at the title Dark Matter as a begging the question fallacy. You, as Fokker, claim to have fixed the problem in order that the speediest expedition of science/ continuation of flights is unhindered.

You (et all) do this by showing that science is still progressing via Neutrino’s and Whimps. Does that prove the ** speediest ** expedition - being the probandum - for the one like Fokker carrying the burden of proof? No of course not.

 

What does this have to do with begging the question?

 

The issue of whether the name/defining the problem inhibits research is not the same as claiming that research proceeds along the fastest possible trajectory. Those are very, very different claims, and not one that I have made. So how about we dispense with this straw man?

 

 

FOCUS

 

 

Now there is the problem of focus. Mother Nature makes it so as current psychology shows that especially with people who are highly conscientious and low on openness even more so when they score high on alertness, communicating on a paradigm issue is walking an emotional tightrope. Usually in psychology / communication depicted by the analogy of the iceberg. The rational bit pops out and is visible the emotional bit is under water. As soon as even the slightest loss of focus is induced by one wrong word, tone of voice or whatever the most commonly held view in science at the moment is that this exerts a fear that blocks a fully rational response via an algorithm: “This is wrong, because:….” And, if that doesn’t work an emotional response is to be expected: anger, laughter mockery, etc. Excellent for survival of the species on production issues, a hindrance in proper research.

 

You now need to demonstrate that there is evidence to support this hypothesis, as applied to research progress. Restating the hypothesis is not evidence.

[kristalris]

 

What?

 

 

Um, no.

 

 

The use of "only a theory" strongly suggests lack of knowledge of what is meant by theory.

 

 

What?

Like I said earlier it's actually not my job to provide correct definitions on matter or mass. Like the Wikipedia-link states there in fact isn't a concise definition of matter at the moment. That is strange because it requires only knowledge and very little creativity to supply one. Just state what everybody agrees on and formulate all the anomalies. That's it. That I in my second attempt didn't hit the mark as such says nothing. That science as yet hasn't done so has a reason. It provides evidence to the effect that improper scientific procedure has been followed. The providing and updating the definitions on these issues in a systematic way is important. And the fact that it hasn't been done is evidence of a confirmation bias. Clearly no one dares to work large issues anymore. Other wise why not?

 

In correct scientific procedure you need concise definitions on everything, the more so on key issues like what is matter and what is mass?

 

As you see in my in part failed attempt to do so, having a definition points in certain directions for further investigation. We know in the link I gave earlier that Einstein showed the prior definitions before him to have been wrong. Getting it right as matter of course shows the way. No creativity needed. Just describe what you do and what you don't know.

 

 

Electromagnetic radiation most certainly exerts gravity

l thought that electromagnetic radiation goes in and out: i.e. can repulse and attract whereas gravity sec per definition only attracts?

 

You showed a few examples of terms being poorly defined. I don't know how this is a "plague" or what it has to do with the discussion.

See above. Correct scientific procedure is the issue. DM was just IMO the easiest to prove wrong.

 

What does this have to do with begging the question?

Again using DM as title is committing for the reasons stated and neigh absolute proof given the fallacy of begging the question. It is a 2 + 2 = 5 discussion otherwise. Your correction like Fokker stating to have corrected it provides you as Fokker with the burden to prove that.

 

BTW Fokker didn't sit back to wait if the ants indeed could bring a plane down. You simply don't take that risk. Ants eating glue from planes is a problem. Incorrectly defined key issues in science likewise.

The issue of whether the name/defining the problem inhibits research is not the same as claiming that research proceeds along the fastest possible trajectory. Those are very, very different claims, and not one that I have made. So how about we dispense with this straw man?

Wait a minute. Since the start of the thread I've been on about just this point as the main point I'm making. Yeager not waiting till someone finds the needle in the haystack on what's wrong with the Sabre. The Ferrari fast track versus the too slow plodding track with a tractor. If I state that and more to that effect and you counter with examples in which you only show that science is (slowly) progressing, I subsequently haven't made a straw-man. You have, in "willfully" disproving a point I even explicitly didn't make. I have stated that science is indeed slowly progressing. It being to slow is the issue. Getting to a TOE before the end of the decade. Now how could that have happened other that it being evidence for a confirmation bias at work? BTW every human is susceptible to confirmation bias. Some more so than others.

 

 

 

You now need to demonstrate that there is evidence to support this hypothesis, as applied to research progress. Restating the hypothesis is not evidence.

The way the discussion in this thread has been going on is evidence of a confirmation bias at work. You missed my main point. Confirmation biases slow down progress that is a scientific known fact both in history and in psychology. It works conservative against the risk of change. Which again in production is good and not bad. Science at the moment doesn't even have a correct definition on what matter is. How on earth can you then subsequently ascertain how difficult or not it is going to be to reach TOE before the end of the decade? That starts off with having a definition on all these key issues. The fact that you don't have them coupled on your statement earlier / the fact that no-one is working on a TOE at the moment is only explainable through the existence of a strong confirmation bias, and the problem for anyone posing argument to get through due to the problem of focus.

 

So textbook psychology shows I must try and get on the same wavelength with you. Now I for instance know you make cartoons, let's see if that works?

[swansont]

kristalris, on 14 Feb 2013 - 11:02, said:

Like I said earlier it's actually not my job to provide correct definitions on matter or mass. Like the Wikipedia-link states there in fact isn't a concise definition of matter at the moment. That is strange because it requires only knowledge and very little creativity to supply one. Just state what everybody agrees on and formulate all the anomalies. That's it. That I in my second attempt didn't hit the mark as such says nothing. That science as yet hasn't done so has a reason. It provides evidence to the effect that improper scientific procedure has been followed. The providing and updating the definitions on these issues in a systematic way is important. And the fact that it hasn't been done is evidence of a confirmation bias. Clearly no one dares to work large issues anymore. Other wise why not?

You seem to have missed the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson several months ago. Clearly people do work on big issues.

 

Confirmation bias could be one reason for failure of science to progress quickly, but it is fallacious to then claim that it is the only reason that it has failed to progress quickly. "Quickly" here is not a well-defined term, ironically enough. How fast should science proceed? Is there any way to quantify that? The history of science is full of examples where it could not progress because the technology did not exist to do the proper experiment, which has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

kristalris, on 14 Feb 2013 - 11:02, said:

See above. Correct scientific procedure is the issue. DM was just IMO the easiest to prove wrong.

But you haven't proven it wrong. You have assumed the problem is in the definition and concluded that the problem is in the definition. That is a logical argument and is begging the question. You have invalidly assumed that otherwise we would have a complete understanding of DM. Something you can't show.

kristalris, on 14 Feb 2013 - 11:02, said:

I have stated that science is indeed slowly progressing. It being to slow is the issue. Getting to a TOE before the end of the decade. Now how could that have happened other that it being evidence for a confirmation bias at work?

Add argument from incredulity to the discussion. Just because you can't think of a reason that science has not progressed faster does not mean that such a reason doesn't exist. If you actually did research you might have a clue.

kristalris, on 14 Feb 2013 - 11:02, said:

BTW every human is susceptible to confirmation bias. Some more so than others.

The way the discussion in this thread has been going on is evidence of a confirmation bias at work. You missed my main point. Confirmation biases slow down progress that is a scientific known fact both in history and in psychology. It works conservative against the risk of change. Which again in production is good and not bad. Science at the moment doesn't even have a correct definition on what matter is. How on earth can you then subsequently ascertain how difficult or not it is going to be to reach TOE before the end of the decade? That starts off with having a definition on all these key issues. The fact that you don't have them coupled on your statement earlier / the fact that no-one is working on a TOE at the moment is only explainable through the existence of a strong confirmation bias, and the problem for anyone posing argument to get through due to the problem of focus.

Again: "confirmation bias can slow research down" + "research has not progressed as fast as I would like it to" does not logically lead to "the pace of science research has been been slowed by confirmation bias"

 

If A, then B

B, therefore A

 

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Made worse because the statement If A then B is too strong. It's really, "if A, maybe B"

[kristalris]

You seem to have missed the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson several months ago. Clearly people do work on big issues.

Indeed the Higgs field was predicted 50 years ago. And, I with my very limited knowledge of these fields predicted something very similar more than a year before CERN showed it was probable and before I understood what was meant by it's mechanism. That only came about when a physicist after the test started to explain what it meant in simple terms. The reason I could do this was because I followed correct scientific procedure. When you do so you converge on a problem in stead of diverging on average. The pieces of the puzzle start to fall in place.

 

If MN is indeed an illusionist then there is no reason not to at least get a correct theory without testing within a few months even. Because you are then looking for something simple at the heart of it. (If indeed it proves to be so complex that we as human apes are simply to stupid to comprehend anyway, well then we won't succeed what ever we do (baring building a big computer that will generate our 42. And subsequently building an even bigger one for reasons I forgot.)

 

I don't contest that fundamental research is being done. I contest the speed at which it is done.

 

Confirmation bias could be one reason for failure of science to progress quickly, but it is fallacious to then claim that it is the only reason that it has failed to progress quickly. "Quickly" here is not a well-defined term, ironically enough. How fast should science proceed? Is there any way to quantify that? The history of science is full of examples where it could not progress because the technology did not exist to do the proper experiment, which has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

Well, at least you concede the possibility of it. I don't claim it to be the only reason, but I do claim it to be a probably main reason. The prediction on the speed one can reach a TOE is an inherent guess. On basis of evidence we readily have available I'd say very probably possible within the decade if organized differently. Maybe even within month's having the answer in the way Higgs had his on the Higgs field.

 

Is it taboo for anyone to state that the Higgs field is an aether? I'd say it is. (Although I indeed think it better defined as not to be that, because the aether would then indeed be nothing that surrounds the particles (what is the definition of a "particle"? Building block?) providing and receiving mass. And the general idea of an aether is that it is something.)

 

Scientists and physicists are humans. Humans have prior convictions and beliefs that form a paradigm of such rules. A priori (as the prior odds) current science would thus deem a paradigm with its inherent confirmation bias (CB) an important hurdle. This is a high prior odds on bases of current psychology and even history) The subsequent evidence (or likelihood ratio's) should thus show quite the sme. Now if we see that Steven Hawking called Higgs a crank or words to that effect without being chastised for that, it can be seen as evidence for a CB.

 

If we see Krauss et all making video's on You Tube depicting something from nothing not understanding that he is extrapolating E = mc2 into a regime even prior or during the big bang where it extremely probably doesn't hold true. Because it then is prior the probable forming of the particles on which it is based. Which everyone would of probably spotted sooner if E = mc2 had been defined as a law with its inherent limits, shows that he is beguiled by the beautiful mathematics and mesmerized by the indeed great achievements of physics, to a point that he evidently can't even contemplate that this could even break down in area's.

 

If we see that I as a non scientist physicist can show improper definitions on key issues that can be taken as evidence of a CB at work. There is no other probable explanation than a CB.

 

Again, without proper definitions you can't give an estimate on how fast a TOE is reachable. Yet you have and even stated earlier that no one as yet is working on it. In other words a waste of time. Whereas if you simply put the definitions in order, and keep them in order it clearly points in a direction where most scientists would agree that one should look, if it weren't for a CB. Yet this could be tested using a correct secret ballot done by good psychologists (aided by physicists)

 

Producing questions along the lines:

 

Do you see MN as an illusionist? Guess most would agree.

Do you thus suspect some simple mathematical rules and physical structures at the heart of it? Guess most would say yes.

Do you believe the Cosmos to be infinite and being cyclic? Guess most scientists would guess this to be true.

 

Well if you then look at all the correctly defined state of affairs on observations and anomalies I guess it won't take long to figure out what MN is probably at.

 

Yet your physics dogma (= paradigm) states that you don't answer questions but only do observations and testable predictions. Well indeed then you don't have need for proper definitions, now do you? But then you can't make any prediction pro or con the speed at which a TOE can be reached either.

 

But you haven't proven it wrong. You have assumed the problem is in the definition and concluded that the problem is in the definition. That is a logical argument and is begging the question. You have invalidly assumed that otherwise we would have a complete understanding of DM. Something you can't show.

I have proven it wrong. Having a title for a definition holding part of the answer is per definition begging the question unless it is true that it is used to limit the scope what you stated, but haven't proved. Like with Fokker if ants are eating at the definition, for the one stating to have solved the problem, to prove that it has.So even if you thus have solved that logical problem a new one arises namely no definition for the whole scope. DM could only be correct when used as a title for all anomalies concerning matter. The latter not even being properly defined either.

 

I have never stated that we would otherwise have a complete understanding of DM. I have only stated that it is easily (for physicists / scientists) to define matter in a concise way giving all we know as observations including anomalies. You Swansont should be able to do that in an afternoon. Yet then I guess you now agree that saying that electro-magnitism most certainly exerts gravity is a wrong definition for the reasons I pointed out. It attracts yes, yet it pushes as well. Gravity only pulls. Now these are important definitions to get right.

 

Word salad done correctly provides the correct bandwidth to work quickly on as yet unclear issues. As long as you stay within the scientific bandwidth i.e. to succinct and it will go wrong and to inaccurate it will also fail.

 

Add argument from incredulity to the discussion. Just because you can't think of a reason that science has not progressed faster does not mean that such a reason doesn't exist. If you actually did research you might have a clue.

I have stated the reasons, why it hasn't progressed faster. They are obvious, and measurable as well if you like. Because of the prior odds however, I don't even have to do that much now do I?

 

Argument ad hominem and of authority. You don't know whether or not I've done actual research.

 

Again: "confirmation bias can slow research down" + "research has not progressed as fast as I would like it to" does not logically lead to "the pace of science research has been been slowed by confirmation bias"

 

If A, then B

B, therefore A

 

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Made worse because the statement If A then B is too strong. It's really, "if A, maybe B"

No it has been presented as a probability statement. If indeed God exists then I'm wrong. But that would then be hindsight bias. Based on what we know of current science of psychology and physics etc. it should be possible to reach TOE within the decade, maybe much sooner. Science at the moment isn't like you stated even trying. There is no valid reason why not. There are a lot of reasons that I already gave to show why this isn't seen at the moment. The same reasoning applies for any given moment in the past since more than fifty years at least.

 

If you get your theory right then even quick and dirty testing will start to render results. Everything should start to fall into place. Maybe that some deeper questions will elude proof due to yet to be developed technology and that may take a hundred years, however having a full theory or theories on TOE to test will speed it up, if it is at all attainable. yet somewhere along the line we will probably run into insurmountable measurement problems. But that shouldn't prevent attempting to get to a TOE right now. This by stating it, organizing it and funding it. Which science up to now without a given valid reason hasn't done.

 

It has primarily only followed one route: the production method route at nigh exclusion of the true research route. The latter states its goals as high as possible after correct analysis of - all - the data and answering - all - the questions via out of the box (= paradigm & CB) thinking. Being deemed crackpot even to the degree that the great hero's of science are certifiably deemed mad by current DSM standards. Again evidence for a CB problem.

 

BTW history on CB problems shows it slows much needed progress down. It is inherently conservative. Which is good in production.

 

Well I tried to post a "paint" picture but failed, but I'll try again (slight John Cleese moment there, being in part digibeet, Yet fiercely proud of it.(Does yelling and hitting the enter button more forcefully help?) Anyway still learning.)

Edited February 15, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Indeed the Higgs field was predicted 50 years ago. And, I with my very limited knowledge of these fields predicted something very similar more than a year before CERN showed it was probable and before I understood what was meant by it's mechanism. That only came about when a physicist after the test started to explain what it meant in simple terms. The reason I could do this was because I followed correct scientific procedure. When you do so you converge on a problem in stead of diverging on average. The pieces of the puzzle start to fall in place.

It strains credulity to claim that you predicted anything similar to the Higgs, at anything approaching the rigor with which the standard model is discussed by physicists.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

If MN is indeed an illusionist then there is no reason not to at least get a correct theory without testing within a few months even. Because you are then looking for something simple at the heart of it. (If indeed it proves to be so complex that we as human apes are simply to stupid to comprehend anyway, well then we won't succeed what ever we do (baring building a big computer that will generate our 42. And subsequently building an even bigger one for reasons I forgot.)

If it is complex, then, and possible that no answer will ever be found, then it is contradictory to expect that we will find an answer quickly.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

I don't contest that fundamental research is being done. I contest the speed at which it is done.

"Clearly no one dares to work large issues anymore." is a direct quote. If that is not a claim that fundamental research is not being done, then it implies that the search for the Higgs is not a large issue. Neither is true IMO.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Well, at least you concede the possibility of it. I don't claim it to be the only reason, but I do claim it to be a probably main reason.

And claim, and claim, and claim. But without evidence to support the claim.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

The prediction on the speed one can reach a TOE is an inherent guess. On basis of evidence we readily have available I'd say very probably possible within the decade if organized differently. Maybe even within month's having the answer in the way Higgs had his on the Higgs field.

The Higgs took decades before a device could be built to get to the energy where it could be discovered. The barrier wasn't "organization". A TOE has been under discussion for nearly 100 years, and yet elements of general relativity could not be tested until relatively recently, again because the technology needed to advance to the point to allow for the devices which needed to be built. Why is there any reason to think that "organization" is now the barrier?

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Is it taboo for anyone to state that the Higgs field is an aether? I'd say it is. (Although I indeed think it better defined as not to be that, because the aether would then indeed be nothing that surrounds the particles (what is the definition of a "particle"? Building block?) providing and receiving mass. And the general idea of an aether is that it is something.)

The aether, as already defined, has been disproven. So yes, it is taboo to bring up disproven science as a theory.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Scientists and physicists are humans. Humans have prior convictions and beliefs that form a paradigm of such rules. A priori (as the prior odds) current science would thus deem a paradigm with its inherent confirmation bias (CB) an important hurdle. This is a high prior odds on bases of current psychology and even history) The subsequent evidence (or likelihood ratio's) should thus show quite the sme. Now if we see that Steven Hawking called Higgs a crank or words to that effect without being chastised for that, it can be seen as evidence for a CB.

Re-stating the hypothesis (and re-stating, and re-stating) is not a substitute for evidence.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

If we see Krauss et all making video's on You Tube depicting something from nothing not understanding that he is extrapolating E = mc2 into a regime even prior or during the big bang where it extremely probably doesn't hold true. Because it then is prior the probable forming of the particles on which it is based. Which everyone would of probably spotted sooner if E = mc2 had been defined as a law with its inherent limits, shows that he is beguiled by the beautiful mathematics and mesmerized by the indeed great achievements of physics, to a point that he evidently can't even contemplate that this could even break down in area's.

We've built nuclear reactors and bombs and particle accelerators, among other things, without the "benefit" of defining E=mc^2 as a law. It boggles the mind that you are seriously contending that this is holding people back.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

If we see that I as a non scientist physicist can show improper definitions on key issues that can be taken as evidence of a CB at work. There is no other probable explanation than a CB.

How about the simple truth that research is hard? Trying to tease out the behavior of nature based on experiments and observations, while not actually knowing the answer, is not a trivial task. Setting up and running experiments takes time. You have to form a hypothesis as to what you might find, and you can be wrong, which means doing a different experiment. Sometimes you don't have the technology available to do the experiment at the precision you want. Sometimes things break.

 

But you think it's cognitive bias.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Again, without proper definitions you can't give an estimate on how fast a TOE is reachable. Yet you have and even stated earlier that no one as yet is working on it. In other words a waste of time. Whereas if you simply put the definitions in order, and keep them in order it clearly points in a direction where most scientists would agree that one should look, if it weren't for a CB. Yet this could be tested using a correct secret ballot done by good psychologists (aided by physicists)

We have a pretty good handle on fusion process — the problem is well-defined. For 50 years we've been a decade or so away from viable commercial fusion. The problem isn't definitions. The problem is that predicting the future of technology is hard. Nobody has done it with any reasonable degree of accuracy and reliability. What is undiscovered in science is unknown. When it will become known is not something you can accurately foretell.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Producing questions along the lines:

 

Do you see MN as an illusionist? Guess most would agree.

Illusion? No. Nature is not an illusion. A basis of science is the idea that what we measure and observe is real.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Do you thus suspect some simple mathematical rules and physical structures at the heart of it? Guess most would say yes.

Nature follows rules, yes.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Do you believe the Cosmos to be infinite and being cyclic? Guess most scientists would guess this to be true.

Open question.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Well if you then look at all the correctly defined state of affairs on observations and anomalies I guess it won't take long to figure out what MN is probably at.

 

Yet your physics dogma (= paradigm) states that you don't answer questions but only do observations and testable predictions. Well indeed then you don't have need for proper definitions, now do you? But then you can't make any prediction pro or con the speed at which a TOE can be reached either.

I have proven it wrong. Having a title for a definition holding part of the answer is per definition begging the question unless it is true that it is used to limit the scope what you stated, but haven't proved. Like with Fokker if ants are eating at the definition, for the one stating to have solved the problem, to prove that it has.So even if you thus have solved that logical problem a new one arises namely no definition for the whole scope. DM could only be correct when used as a title for all anomalies concerning matter. The latter not even being properly defined either.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think your examples of Fokker (and Yeager) constitute proof of anything, or are relevant.

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

I have never stated that we would otherwise have a complete understanding of DM. I have only stated that it is easily (for physicists / scientists) to define matter in a concise way giving all we know as observations including anomalies. You Swansont should be able to do that in an afternoon. Yet then I guess you now agree that saying that electro-magnitism most certainly exerts gravity is a wrong definition for the reasons I pointed out. It attracts yes, yet it pushes as well. Gravity only pulls. Now these are important definitions to get right.

EM radiation exerts gravity. The definition is not wrong. It interacts electromagnetically as well. A good example of getting definitions right — you should really do that.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Word salad done correctly provides the correct bandwidth to work quickly on as yet unclear issues. As long as you stay within the scientific bandwidth i.e. to succinct and it will go wrong and to inaccurate it will also fail. I have stated the reasons, why it hasn't progressed faster. They are obvious, and measurable as well if you like. Because of the prior odds however, I don't even have to do that much now do I?

Correction: why you think it hasn't progressed faster. What you think is not evidence.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

Argument ad hominem and of authority. You don't know whether or not I've done actual research.

You have stated you are not a physicist. Were you lying about that? (For the record, I don't think you are. I think it's obvious from your arguments that you don't work in the field)

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

No it has been presented as a probability statement. If indeed God exists then I'm wrong. But that would then be hindsight bias. Based on what we know of current science of psychology and physics etc. it should be possible to reach TOE within the decade, maybe much sooner.

Stated without any evidence whatsoever. Assertion is not evidence.

 

kristalris, on 15 Feb 2013 - 10:06, said:

If you get your theory right then even quick and dirty testing will start to render results.

Codswallop. Science history is full of examples of theories that could not be tested because technology wasn't up to the task.

 

Build me a quick and dirty particle accelerator that can test for the Higgs. Build me a BEC with 1980's technology.

[kristalris]

It strains credulity to claim that you predicted anything similar to the Higgs, at anything approaching the rigor with which the standard model is discussed by physicists.

I of course did so in word salad. And it fits like a glove to the way a physicist explained what all the excitement was about. He showed that the Higgs particle apears and subsequently sticks to the particle to which it provides the mass, whilst at the same time causing the particle to move through the Higgs field as if it were moving through syrup.

 

Now the fact I did so in word salad is even to be deemed correct scientific procedure. It is using the correct "mathematics" so to speak. I'll get back to that later.

 

 

 

If it is complex, then, and possible that no answer will ever be found, then it is contradictory to expect that we will find an answer quickly.

What is this? a priori hind sight bias? If we would know beforehand that it is impossible then indeed it is useless to try. Point is we don't know how difficult it is exactly at the moment whatever we do or don't do. Yet one thing is crystal clear if you don't venture to try you wont find out ever. And the quicker you start trying the quicker you will find it, if it indeed proves to be much more simple than thought at the moment. Many problems concerning MN and even problems in general are easy with hindsight. If this one on TOE ultimately also proves to be simple you clearly have followed the wrong scientific route for years. I.e. proven then to slow. And, no hind sight bias. The rule applies that historian Barbara Tuchman in "The march of Folly" describes: that peoples / leaders through time continuously follow a route that is counterproductive to their own clear interests even though in their time they were shown that it was a folly and why, yet continued to do so.

 

A nice history of what psychology would call paradigm / CB problem. I would venture to call this a law of history and a law of psychology. Laws in this sense much and much weaker than laws of physics BTW. Yet correctly definable as laws.

 

Thing is that then assuming or even stating to know that there is not a paradigm and CB problem in current physics is like stating that in physics the psychological apples fall upwards. Do you honestly think that? On what basis do you think that physics doesn't have a PD and CB problem? Isn't you dogma that you may not answer physiological questions about physics yet should only address measurable predictions with mathematics and thus not word salad a paradigm?

 

Now you repeatedly perform a strawman on me as stating that I say / imply that this is incorrect procedure. Because it is correct procedure in the production department as part of the research department. Say we deem this Yang. What the critique of mine is that you don't support Yin, the true research attitude as well. So simply not opposing or worse still opposing of that is incorrect scientific procedure even if you can indeed point to an in part correct procedure of Yang. Again, you need to be doing both. Yin and Yang. And, Yin goes before Yang. yang is only a fail-safe if you don't have a clue any more where to start looking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Clearly no one dares to work large issues anymore." is a direct quote. If that is not a claim that fundamental research is not being done, then it implies that the search for the Higgs is not a large issue. Neither is true IMO.

Here you do a straw man on me, as just stated. Correct use of word salad: if you read in a newspaper: "Elderly don't dare go out at night" do you then deem that to be dis proven if you spot one elderly person walking the street at night? You would be a bit of a Dr Spock (Star Track) wouldn't you?

 

It is short hand for: "this is a major problem a great many elderly don't dare to go out any more."

 

Actually physicists and mathematicians do the same. You use shorthand formulas such as E = mc2 to point at an as I understand larger formula that would be more correct. I.e. you are allowed to cut corners as long as everybody understands that that indeed is being done. And of course dependent on the issue at hand.

 

Using word salad to reach a TOE in the idea / concept faze is the correct scientific way to go about it. The paradigm Yang is thus wrong not to actively support and use that. It is in fact the only way to brainstorm your way ahead without getting bogged down in details for fear of making mistakes before even getting started.

 

If someone is in a big building in search for the TOE toilette loo, then using the mark 1 mod 1 eyeball will suffice, unless some specs are in order to distinguish between the gents and the ladies. Now if you are working this problem being a bit pressed for time, then using a microscope to find your way is going to be counterproductive in more ways then one. As we Dutch would say you'll end up pissing beside the pot. First of all it is going to take to long, and you will loose your way and might end up pissing in the pot containing a ficus tree. Then stating that mankind has a long history of pissing against trees and that you are back to watering the roots and certainly not pissing beside the pot, would not cover up a situation that will at a point stink to high heaven. The march of folly.

 

I.e. in search for TOE you first use correct word salad. To do that you need correct definitions. You have even admitted in not having those. Then you use mathematics.

 

 

 

 

And claim, and claim, and claim. But without evidence to support the claim.

 

 

I claim claim claim on basis of laws of psychology that imply that psychological apples fall downwards. You say that for physicists they fall upwards. Okay prove it!

 

The Higgs took decades before a device could be built to get to the energy where it could be discovered. The barrier wasn't "organization". A TOE has been under discussion for nearly 100 years, and yet elements of general relativity could not be tested until relatively recently, again because the technology needed to advance to the point to allow for the devices which needed to be built. Why is there any reason to think that "organization" is now the barrier?

If you would have had your definitions on idea, concept, theory and law in order you would't of made this - systematic - error in reasoning. Higgs reached his theory 50 years ago. We could of likewise have had a correct TOE then as well. The proven law of that might for ever elude us. Yet if you got the correct formulas in catching MN there is no reason why everything we can measure falls into place without having any anomalies anymore. But if you don't venture to try you most certainly wont get there quickly now will you? Get it organised! Try, test get at it and check to see if it is a barrier and don't assume it.

 

Who is to say that at the deepest level MN isn't simply working the laws of Newton yet > c with actual atoms? Being the illusionist we - know! - she has proven to be in the past. Matter for instance seeming solid yet being much more void of anything as we know etc. etc, etc..

 

 

 

The aether, as already defined, has been disproven. So yes, it is taboo to bring up disproven science as a theory.

 

 

Then why do you do that concerning psychology? And the basics of mathematics and correct use of definitions? Is matter in your opinion correctly defined?

 

Sorry out of time will react to the rest later.

 

Re-stating the hypothesis (and re-stating, and re-stating) is not a substitute for evidence.

 

We've built nuclear reactors and bombs and particle accelerators, among other things, without the "benefit" of defining E=mc^2 as a law. It boggles the mind that you are seriously contending that this is holding people back.

 

 

How about the simple truth that research is hard? Trying to tease out the behavior of nature based on experiments and observations, while not actually knowing the answer, is not a trivial task. Setting up and running experiments takes time. You have to form a hypothesis as to what you might find, and you can be wrong, which means doing a different experiment. Sometimes you don't have the technology available to do the experiment at the precision you want. Sometimes things break.

 

But you think it's cognitive bias.

 

 

We have a pretty good handle on fusion process — the problem is well-defined. For 50 years we've been a decade or so away from viable commercial fusion. The problem isn't definitions. The problem is that predicting the future of technology is hard. Nobody has done it with any reasonable degree of accuracy and reliability. What is undiscovered in science is unknown. When it will become known is not something you can accurately foretell.

 

Illusion? No. Nature is not an illusion. A basis of science is the idea that what we measure and observe is real.

 

Nature follows rules, yes.

 

Open question.

 

I'm at a loss to understand why you think your examples of Fokker (and Yeager) constitute proof of anything, or are relevant.

 

EM radiation exerts gravity. The definition is not wrong. It interacts electromagnetically as well. A good example of getting definitions right — you should really do that.

 

 

Correction: why you think it hasn't progressed faster. What you think is not evidence.

 

 

You have stated you are not a physicist. Were you lying about that? (For the record, I don't think you are. I think it's obvious from your arguments that you don't work in the field)

 

 

Stated without any evidence whatsoever. Assertion is not evidence.

 

 

Codswallop. Science history is full of examples of theories that could not be tested because technology wasn't up to the task.

 

Build me a quick and dirty particle accelerator that can test for the Higgs. Build me a BEC with 1980's technology.

[swansont]

Sorry out of time will react to the rest later.

 

Don't bother. I'm done wasting my time with you.

[Ophiolite]

To lurkers and casual readers of this thread, here is an executive summary.

 

In conflating assertion of opinions with proof by evidence, Kristalris has abused one key element of scientific procedure: the need to talk sense.

[kristalris]

To lurkers and casual readers of this thread, here is an executive summary.

 

In conflating assertion of opinions with proof by evidence, Kristalris has abused one key element of scientific procedure: the need to talk sense.

Oh thank you so much for this executive summary: it indeed will be extremely hard for you to make sense of something that conflicts with your paradigm according to current psychology.

 

Taking current science on (textbook wisdom:Data ---> Information ---> Knowledge ---> BOOK Wisdom) psychology conflicting with the current paradigm will lead to an inherent confirmation bias by its defenders unless an authority concurs or the opposing one can hold the focus of the other. The latter also greatly dependent upon the open-mindedness of this other person. Yet current science may be taken as a fact in this. You can't on the other hand take current science on physics as a fact as the appropriate solution for the observed anomalies. Nor any claim that only some tweaking of current theories is needed to eradicate these anomalies. Especially not because it has become more and more wacky and weird in stead of clear the more data have been obtained. More and more proven predictions doesn't cover up more and more data on anomalies that have occurred.

 

Current paradigm in physics: no philosophy to see what prior assumptions are in order or is there any need to explain what waves are or where the observed order stems from. Thus there is no need for word salad but only data and mathematics in order to describe nature. An extremely high burden of proof is on the one that disputes this. So time is relative, c = max speed, and anyone contesting this is a crack pot. Physics is progressing as fast as possible for others to disprove.

 

So someone stating that mathematics dictate proper input of word salad based assumptions is a crack pot. Which is a blatant contradiction, because mathematics dictates non garbage input by ultimately word salad. And someone stating that all the relevant definitions are not in sufficient order, because if they were one would see that there is no scientific base to state that the yet to be found laws of physics at the deepest level are not possibly very simple. And not as current paradigm holds very difficult. We simply don't know either way.

 

To state they are extremely difficult or just as difficult as current known laws of physics is even less probable on Occams razor than to state that they are even probably simple in nature. So instead of extrapolating mathematics into incomprehensible regimes (i.e. something from nothing), simply extrapolating the size and mass of assumed parts of the smallest observed particles below the as yet measurable level does NOT infringe - per definition - on current data, theories or laws of physics. And that poses a simple Newton explanation for everything.

 

Not investigating this via possible tests and organizing this is incorrect scientific procedure. Based thus on data of current science.

 

Given the current paradigm and thus to be taken as fact confirmation bias of that paradigm one is forced to assume that taking a guess with a 1 / 100 of being right on a TOE is extremely unattractive to those physicists who are capable of such feats of good guessing. There is a 99/1 chance to become the laughing stock of science if it indeed - very probably - fails in individual cases. This estimate is forced on physicists by current psychology as the most probable explanation of no attempts as opposed to the explanation that it is to difficult. There is no evidence of the latter in lieu of the given alternate. Which alternate can be taken as fact because it is current science on psychology.

 

The more so because correct definition would even show the need to support even a 1 / 1000 chance of being correct by laymen. GIVEN the even probable fact that MN is indeed playing a simple game of an illusion. The same would even hold if it was only possible BTW. The only route open to science is to get it organised to test and not to argue. It is even inherently cheap to get to a TOE if it indeed is possible. A TOE defined correctly isn't a Law on everything. I.e. you can have many TOE's but only one LOE. Which theories to test first: Occam's razor. That ultimately it is very difficult to prove a LOE isn't the first thing on the agenda.

 

At the moment science hasn't even one contender for TOE. Science isn't even trying.

 

A theory correctly defined is consistent with all current data and laws of science and provides a mathematical prediction on all forces of nature.

 

If science would indeed start to follow the correct route it would probably even show if MN is indeed playing a simple illusion that there aren't that may concepts for TOE's even in word salad that can be consistently formulated. How many cranks as yet have provided contenders for this on this site ever? 0? 1? 500? How many?

Simple probabilistic reasoning shows it worth wile to put effort into it, even if it are indeed 500 and thus show it incorrect scientific procedure if it isn't stimulated and tested. Even getting only one in this site is worth it on a 1 / 1000 probability. I.e. how many sites are there?

 

State your estimated probability of a guess by a present day Einstein on a TOE given current data? Why not 1 /10?

 

What is the chance of a current day Einstein even daring to try, not knowing to have this ability? 1/100? How many current day Einstein physicists are there?

 

If you don't organize it it won't happen quickly. If you do and MN is an illusionist after all, you will quickly get there.

 

The technique that current science on psychology shows how to optimally use ones brain is also consistent with this, as I will show.

[kristalris]

Oh dear, oh dear, unmotivated move to speculations by an anonymous moderator. I wonder what caused that, even when reading the rules?

 

Couldn't of been the title "correct scientific procedure, especially in physics" could it?

 

Was it then the speculation on the chance that MN is an illusionist? That would be on unsound reasoning then. Because correct scientific procedure demands that science speculates and takes up position on that issue. Al the more it would be a fallacy because I cover therewith all exits via research that MN can take - including the current physics exit - whereas current physics only covers the exit that fits the current paradigm. Speculating via the fallacy that that will render the fastest results because it has shown to render results. So my critique on current physics if it wants to belong to current science is that it is speculating, in stead of covering all possible exits. And that physics is speculating badly above that as well. Yet it sends my thread to speculation.

 

Well then it might have been all the fallacies that were claimed that I made in the thread. But I made none. Not one. Any objective reader can check this and see it to be true.

 

Is it then sent to speculation because of the speculations of others and the fallacies of others? Such as: argument of authority, circular argument, begging the question, and what not. Or the straw men that I was repeatedly treated on, without ever doing one myself?

 

Or is it the conflating assertion on evidence and proof? Baring in mind that Kuhn from whom the idea on scientific paradigm stems shows that it is just the problem of conflating views that is at the heart of it. This via the metaphor of the rabbit and duck I gave at the beginning of the thread?

 

Or is it that physicists think that they are above the normal rules that define science as science? I.e. that they make the rules?

 

Such rules as: he who states position proves the position.

He who infringes on systematic logical (=scientific) formalities such as using incorrect definitions or titles thereof must state and thus prove the position that this poses no problem.

 

Or is it that the current science of psychology doesn't hold that physicists have a paradigm i.e. to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time.

 

So Wikipedia as the view of current science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#In_scientific_procedure

 

Quote:

 

A currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. The scientific method would allow for orthodox scientific investigations into phenomena which might contradict or disprove the standard model; however grant funding would be proportionately more difficult to obtain for such experiments, depending on the degree of deviation from the accepted standard model theory which the experiment would be expected to test for. To illustrate the point, an experiment to test for the mass of neutrinos or the decay of protons (small departures from the model) would be more likely to receive money than experiments to look for the violation of the conservation of momentum, or ways to engineer reverse time travel.

 

End quote.

 

So you lot will have to change this Wikipedia page as well then.

 

Do please bear in mind the topic is correct scientific procedure - in general - especially in physics. This to show that physics is infringing on this. And, we pay a price for this without doubt. But that's history of folly repeating itself, now isn't it?

 

​So the unmotivated move to speculation provides further strong evidence of my point. An emotional / non rational reaction to fully rational argument as to expected in current psychology when challenging current strongly held beliefs. It isn't physics that is the problem, but physicists not willing / able to understand that they are humans, that follow normal fairly well understood rules of psychology. This to the point that the thread is not even taken as a properly scientifically held view that is opposed but seen as speculative.

 

The problem for me in opposing physics is, that in order for me to hold the focus of physicists in their current paradigm, that I need then to do it in mathematics. But that is just the problem. The over emphasis on mathematics that in itself infringes on the basic rules of mathematics: beware of garbage-in.

 

To prevent that you need to have proper word salad (as a re-appropriation: not well understood either as the thread shows.) in order to answer all relevant questions, before doing the mathematics. And to do that you need proper well kept definitions that systematically cover they entire topic of TOE on what you do and what you don't know. Physicists think they can leave this out in proper scientific procedure. That is un-defensible as being scientific in any way. This because they don't understand its importance and on averedge aren't very good at word salad. Neither are all physicists good at guessing. Or formally trained in the correct rules of evidence and proof when dealing with very little data, yet forced to make timely and above aver-edge correct decisions.

 

They thus don't see that anyone with common sense sees just as especially all good assessment psychologists that you need to get the team in order.

 

The problem is the democratic science of peers in physics. If the majority of peers hold that apples fall upwards, well then they do.

 

Though predictable it remains hilariously noteworthy behavior for scientifically trained people to reason in a way that renders this thread as speculative. It isn't. Its current not understood by physicists science. On which they structurally infringe. That physicists have attained awe inspiring achievements doesn't make this any different.

 

That the Church in the middle-ages built awe inspiring cathedrals didn't prove that the earth was flat, now did it? Just as that CERN doesn't prove the universe to be flat either.

 

You lot are in a confirmation bias of intergalactic proportions. This brings us to the issue of paradigm shift and how that works:

Edited February 19, 2013 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

See post 121.

[Phi for All]

Oh dear, oh dear, unmotivated move to speculations by an anonymous moderator. I wonder what caused that, even when reading the rules?

 

!

Moderator Note

It was motivated by the fact that I thought I'd moved it there pages and pages ago in response to someone reporting it. I sincerely apologize to the membership for keeping it in a mainstream section for so long. Mea culpa.