Bill Angel Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 There is an interesting article related to this subject: Henri Poincaré: the unlikely link between Einstein and Picasso Poincaré helped spark the explosion of creativity in both art and science that set the tenor of the 20th century http://www.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/jul/17/henri-poincare-einstein-picasso Poincaré once wrote: "It is only through science and art that civilisation is of value." He straddled two worlds, inspiring both Einstein and Picasso and played a pivotal role in sparking the explosion of creativity in both art and science that set the tenor of the 20th century. Explosions in creativity in science and art can be interconnected. If the models of reality expressed by the mathematician fail to stimulate your creativity, then look to the work of the artist.
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 . hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]" hy·poth·e·sis A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. as·sump·tion A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market". ev·i·dence The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An assumption is a guess without evidence while an hypothesis is a good guess made from the evidence. The purpose of making an hypothesis is to come to the truth and making an assumption is to twist the facts to fit your view point at all costs.
swansont Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 hy·poth·e·sis A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. as·sump·tion A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market". ev·i·dence The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An assumption is a guess without evidence while an hypothesis is a good guess made from the evidence. The purpose of making an hypothesis is to come to the truth and making an assumption is to twist the facts to fit your view point at all costs. Your point?
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Your point? That assumptions are common in the scientific literature and hypotheses are rare. People should know the difference so they can spot the assumptions in the scientific literature. Assumptions lead to confusion when taken as fact and ultimately to chaos. And please don't take it as a personal attack if you're a scientific researcher. Addressing the OP's question fully: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Mathematics = man made. Observation and Hypothesis without coming to your own conclusions is the best way for exploring the frontiers of science. Coming to your own conclusions is making assumptions. Edited February 13, 2013 by Consistency
imatfaal Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 hy·poth·e·sis A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. as·sump·tion A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market". ev·i·dence The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An assumption is a guess without evidence while an hypothesis is a good guess made from the evidence. The purpose of making an hypothesis is to come to the truth and making an assumption is to twist the facts to fit your view point at all costs. Neither the definitions given above - nor the OED online where they originate from - give any implication of a positive motivation for the individual forming a hypothesis, nor a nefarious motivation for those making an assumption; this is purely your own personal addition to the meaning of these words. Those reading scientific literature need to be critical but open-minded, sceptical and optimistic, prosaic yet imaginative; basically the same as any reader of research or non-fiction of any kind. Blanket warnings of large scale and active attempts to deceive are bogus and counterproductive. Hypotheses taken as fact are just as dangerous as assumptions - they are merely called something else; science works on the basis of finding evidence to bolster some claims and refute others, assumptions should be, and are, kept to an absolute minimum
swansont Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Consistency, on 13 Feb 2013 - 12:52, said: That assumptions are common in the scientific literature and hypotheses are rare. People should know the difference so they can spot the assumptions in the scientific literature. Assumptions lead to confusion when taken as fact and ultimately to chaos. And please don't take it as a personal attack if you're a scientific researcher. Addressing the OP's question fully: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Mathematics = man made. Observation and Hypothesis without coming to your own conclusionsis the best way for exploring the frontiers of science. Coming to your own conclusions is making assumptions. Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) You speak as if people aren't already trying to think of new things. No. That is not what I think or in fact know is currently happening. In fact it is the new things that many of us are interested to hear. We then may make a personal decision " oh that sounds interesting" or " that's a bit too far out for me " and leave it alone. Not posed as a list by any means but a couple of areas that come to mind , as new areas ( islands ) possible for further expansion or more to the point new directions are for instance ( which I am sure you are aware of ) are :- Emergence- where complex structure emerges NOT from reductionist science but from an emergent activity. Genetic Algorithms - Solutions by results rather than by calculation etc There is an interesting article related to this subject: Henri Poincaré: the unlikely link between Einstein and Picasso Poincaré helped spark the explosion of creativity in both art and science that set the tenor of the 20th century http://www.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/jul/17/henri-poincare-einstein-picasso Explosions in creativity in science and art can be interconnected. If the models of reality expressed by the mathematician fail to stimulate your creativity, then look to the work of the artist. Very interesting article about Poincare, Einstein and Picasso. In some respects it seems to endorse this thread argument. Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science. Obviously , as you have said there is no ONE single way in which science has progressed over the centuries We have had the entire spectrum, From individuals jumping out of baths, apples on heads, down right hard thinking about it, individuals slogging it out through maths, walks in helegoland , teams in university , the whole caboodle. The emphasis that I was suggesting might help,whether in this forum, or elsewhere was to give creative thought a bit of 'air space'. A few years ago when Prof Lee Smolin, was trying to get Loop Quantum Gravity going as a contender for the Quantum- gravity merger, he was given a fairly rough ride by the String Theory contingent , when string theory was where everybody that counted was at. Similarly with 'Emergence ' Prof Laughlin ( not sure of spelling ) has had to push hard against the establishment, As has the new style of Maths man ( game theory ) James Lovelock with the Giah hypothesis hit the nail right on the head with "Earth Science " battering his head against a brick wall of established thought , Now right up to the point Where us in England are under water or thereabouts. Everything ,everywhere squidges mud under foot, its wet all the time, and a few weeks ago a major flood pulled down Devonian sandstone and deposited in my road , outside the front door, , cars abandoned, railway lines washed away, And still the establishment does not accept IMMEDIATE ACTION ( like next Month ) is required . And so it goes on ... Creative thinkers are not being given the space they deserve, and in fact, the world at large deserves. Hence my thread proposal is not that , any one distinctive style of scientist be given the steering wheel , But that the establishment is not giving due credence to Scientists with creative vision. Edited February 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Consistency Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 And so it goes on ... Creative thinkers are not being given the space they deserve, and in fact, the world at large deserves. Hence my thread proposal is not that , any one distinctive style of scientist be given the steering wheel , But that the establishment is not giving due credence to Scientists with creative vision. Hear hear!!! We will never get it... Too much egoism in society. (Not a personal attack against anyone) Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science. Why would anyone need to man-write a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon? Unless they needed a ego stroke. Its strange how ignorance in your eyes is non-conformism in my eyes.
swansont Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Why would anyone need to man-write a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon? Unless they needed a ego stroke. The connection to my Einstein examples is … ?
Consistency Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) The connection to my Einstein examples is … ? I should have been more clear... Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science. Why would anyone need to man-write(formulate a model for the effects) a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon are examples of length contraction and time dilation ? Edited February 14, 2013 by Consistency
michel123456 Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) This thread is derailing IMHO To the OP: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Of course NO: mathematics alone is not a safe medium. Mathematics is a tool, you can use it wisely or not. There are examples where mathematics give results that are considered unphysical and are dismissed at first sight. Like results giving negatives where evidence shows only positives. Observation & hypothesis, yes, but not only. I am convinced that many scientists use also ideas (inspirations) out of the strict scientific process. After all, if you don't know what you are looking for you will never find it. Expecting to find everything from observation is like the scientist wanting to dig the entire Earth to find a lost civilization, sorry no, a bone of australopithecus, oops no an unknown bacteria, no an unknown [put in here what is unknown]. Edited February 14, 2013 by michel123456 1
swansont Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I should have been more clear... Why would anyone need to man-write(formulate a model for the effects) a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon are examples of length contraction and time dilation ? Because a) that's what scientists do and b) the sun and clouds are not examples of length contraction nor time dilation, in any straightforward way measurable in ca 1900 This thread is derailing IMHO To the OP: Of course NO: mathematics alone is not a safe medium. Mathematics is a tool, you can use it wisely or not. There are examples where mathematics give results that are considered unphysical and are dismissed at first sight. Like results giving negatives where evidence shows only positives. And there are experiments that don't work. Much of scientific endeavor involves dead-ends because you don't know the answer. That's not an excuse to not try. Observation & hypothesis, yes, but not only. I am convinced that many scientists use also ideas (inspirations) out of the strict scientific process. After all, if you don't know what you are looking for you will never find it. And without math you don't know where to look. I just brought up Einstein as an example. You would dismiss such discovery. Goodbye to GPS. And lasers.
Consistency Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 To the OP: Of course NO: mathematics alone is not a safe medium. Mathematics is a tool, you can use it wisely or not. There are examples where mathematics give results that are considered unphysical and are dismissed at first sight. Like results giving negatives where evidence shows only positives. Observation & hypothesis, yes, but not only. I am convinced that many scientists use also ideas (inspirations) out of the strict scientific process. After all, if you don't know what you are looking for you will never find it. Expecting to find everything from observation is like the scientist wanting to dig the entire Earth to find a lost civilization, sorry no, a bone of australopithecus, oops no an unknown bacteria, no an unknown [put in here what is unknown]. +100000000 LOL at the last part. Because a) that's what scientists do and b) the sun and clouds are not examples of length contraction nor time dilation, in any straightforward way measurable in ca 1900 And there are experiments that don't work. Much of scientific endeavor involves dead-ends because you don't know the answer. That's not an excuse to not try. And without math you don't know where to look. I just brought up Einstein as an example. You would dismiss such discovery. Goodbye to GPS. And lasers. So... The sun and clouds length contraction and time dilation are NOT relative to the stationary observer as they move through the horizon? Michael Faraday didn't need math. The math needs to be created in the first place from...? Intuition? Einstein shouldn't be given whole credit to GPS. GPS is a compendium of theories from various inventors. Say goodbye to GPS without the radio.
swansont Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 +100000000 LOL at the last part. So... The sun and clouds length contraction and time dilation are NOT relative to the stationary observer as they move through the horizon? How much time dilation is present in the sun or length contraction in the motion of the clouds? I'm not saying there is none, I'm saying that it was not an experimental determination of these values that prompted the development of relativity. The equations came first. Michael Faraday didn't need math. The math needs to be created in the first place from...? Intuition? The position "theory sometimes drives experiment" is not the same as "all experiment is driven by theory", and an example of experiment driving theory does not negate the statement. I have given examples of theory driving experiment, meaning my point is valid. So: What is your point? Einstein shouldn't be given whole credit to GPS. GPS is a compendium of theories from various inventors. Say goodbye to GPS without the radio. Another point that does not rebut my statement.
Consistency Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 How much time dilation is present in the sun or length contraction in the motion of the clouds? I'm not saying there is none, I'm saying that it was not an experimental determination of these values that prompted the development of relativity. The equations came first. There is some length contraction and time dilation.. and from that some.. comes an "idea". Do you have scientific evidence? An interview with you and Einstein? The position "theory sometimes drives experiment" is not the same as "all experiment is driven by theory", and an example of experiment driving theory does not negate the statement. I have given examples of theory driving experiment, meaning my point is valid. So: What is your point? My point is that theory comes from an idea and so does experiment. Same poop, different pile. Another point that does not rebut my statement. My point was to not treat einstein(selfish woman abuser) as a God while other inventors deserve more credit. Give credit where it is due.
swansont Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 There is some length contraction and time dilation.. and from that some.. comes an "idea". Do you have scientific evidence? An interview with you and Einstein? I have his 1905 paper, which is pure theory. If you can find a paper showing that these measurements were made prior to 1905, I'd love to see it. The first measurement (albeit indirect) is generally acknowledged as the Rossi & Hall experiment with atmospheric muons, published in 1941. My point is that theory comes from an idea and so does experiment. Same poop, different pile. Which is not something I contended, so I'll thank you to not poop on me. My point was to not treat einstein(selfish woman abuser) as a God A complete non-sequitur and poisoning of the well, followed by a straw man. I used Einstein as an example to prove my point, because it was very easy to do so, given that his theories are pretty well known. while other inventors deserve more credit. Give credit where it is due. This isn't about credit. Try and stick to the program.
Consistency Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I have his 1905 paper, which is pure theory. If you can find a paper showing that these measurements were made prior to 1905, I'd love to see it. The first measurement (albeit indirect) is generally acknowledged as the Rossi & Hall experiment with atmospheric neutrinos, published in 1941.I wouldn't mind reading it. PDF please. Lets say that I am able to do the experiment in my head... is it a theory or an experiment?
swansont Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I wouldn't mind reading it. PDF please. http://www.google.com/ If it's Einstein, try "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Lets say that I am able to do the experiment in my head... is it a theory or an experiment? Theory. Any true test of a theory must involve a physical experiment, in which you record what actually happens in nature.
Consistency Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Theory. Any true test of a theory must involve a physical experiment, in which you record what actually happens in nature. I meant this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment Isn't a theory the success of an experiment?
ajb Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I meant this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment Isn't a theory the success of an experiment? Thought experiments can be useful, and in the case of Schrödinger's cat illuminating and puzzling at the same time. Thought experiments can help guide thought, suggest new lines of investigation and help construct new physical experiments. All good, but at some point a physical theory needs to be experimentally tested and compared with nature. My own opinion here is that this thread has become a little off topic. The OP was not about Einstein and what he did or did not do, nor the issue of scientific credit. 2
swansont Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I meant this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment Isn't a theory the success of an experiment? How can a gedanken experiment be termed successful, until it is compared with an actual result?
michel123456 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Historically (just to get closer to the OP) one could mention Zenobe Gramme, inventor of the dynamo and electrical motor, who knew almost nothing about mathematics.There is a myth: he was attending a presentation in his honor about his inventions at the university , a presentation where the professors explained everything on the black board with mathematical equations. At some point Zenobe asked what are all those "S" in front of the equations, ignoring what an integral was.
swansont Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 As far as the OP is concerned, it's poorly presented, in that there is no either/or of math vs experiment. There is also no restriction on where you get your inspiration for ideas. You take the avenue that is open to you in whatever research you are doing. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. 1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 15, 2013 Author Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) As far as the OP is concerned, it's poorly presented, in that there is no either/or of math vs experiment. There is also no restriction on where you get your inspiration for ideas. You take the avenue that is open to you in whatever research you are doing. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The said opening statement :- Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? You are correct, if read in isolation. However the first posting associated with the title , explains the context in some detail. The statement does not say that " Observation and Hypothesis should lead. ,but asks the question should.....? The sentiment behind the question, was that , there appears to be a disproportional emphasis on maths as a source of advancement in breaking new boundaries in physics, where it is proposed that creative conceptual thinking could possibly provide leading new avenues of research , which would not be found by more logically based , maths orientated research. Ground Breaking Intuitive ideas, quite often do not come from a current , subject based line of research, but often come from cross discipline , observation and thinking. This has echo,s of the way that genetic mixing in reproduction can produce improved characteristics in the next generation. ! Edited February 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Recommended Posts