Scientific testing (split from goal of science)

[Strange]

Just in case I might be misinterpreted, I often use the word, "fringe" to describe any of the sciences of the very large (Cosmology, Astronomy) and the very small (Quantum Mechanics, Atomic Physics), and to specifically any theories in these that are based on observations that are unable to be repeatable.

 

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use a word with an existing, well-established and widely understood meaning (in this case "fringe science") to mean something else.

 

If anyone knows of a better term for this, I welcome it

 

I see nothing to distinguish that random collection of fields from any other branch of science. They all build models and test them against repeatable observation and experiment.

[studiot]

 

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use a word with an existing, well-established and widely understood meaning (in this case "fringe science") to mean something else.

 

Hear! Hear!

 

+1

[Klaynos]

Then he talks about the completeness of what we know. Of facts, not theories.

 

 

This distinction is what had been missing in many of the op's examples. I think it has been described in the thread as confusing observations with theory.

 

And for the record, SB, many of the observations in cosmology and qm are repeatable. In qm most experiments are repeatable. Your definition of fringe just indicates a lack of understanding of where those areas of physics are. Which doesn't help your general argument.

[Scott Mayers]

 

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use a word with an existing, well-established and widely understood meaning (in this case "fringe science") to mean something else.

 

 

I see nothing to distinguish that random collection of fields from any other branch of science. They all build models and test them against repeatable observation and experiment.

Well, at least I give warning that I may still use it until I can find a simpler way to say, "The sciences concerning the very large and very small collectively". You may not see a distinction but I can try to help clarify:

 

In "the very large" sciences, it deals with some observations that are 'fixed' with respect to our limited range in time. For instance, while we may be able to find better resolution to add more information to say, the Cosmic Background Radiation, at each stage, once the image is 'taken' in that means of observation, it remains the way it appears as it would take way too long to actually perceive any change or changes that matter. In this example case, I don't think we'd live long enough (all of humanity) to see a change given the exact same technique of observation.

 

In this way, since the observation cannot be altered, it relies on the interpretation usually of the initial authors. So given we are not able to question the authority unless we are presumed to provide 'new' experiment to dislodge the author (plus their interpretation), we are unable to practically dislodge such a theory based on it. This technically makes such a theory practically impossible to actually disprove.

 

In contrast, in "the very small" sciences, these deal with a large multitude of change but requires a high necessity to rely on statistical inferences and often relates to destructive methods (smashing particles to infer what they are or how they behave). This method creates a 'cloud' of options which also remain 'static' in the sense that under the same methods they do not change. For instance, the measure of an orbital given some technique will demonstrate how they are of one type of another. Another example is to our measure of radioactive decay of specific elements. These we trust as observations to be relatively 'fixed' in the same way as the very large.

 

Because these areas on the edges of size extremes use observations that remain fixed, we cannot 're-observe' any possible change in the same way we might to more locally ranged sizes we contend with regarding all the other sciences. The question is about "proximity" (maybe I could call this "non-proximal" or "non-local" sciences?)

This distinction is what had been missing in many of the op's examples. I think it has been described in the thread as confusing observations with theory.

 

And for the record, SB, many of the observations in cosmology and qm are repeatable. In qm most experiments are repeatable. Your definition of fringe just indicates a lack of understanding of where those areas of physics are. Which doesn't help your general argument.

Read my post that followed yours (above this now) where I point to the problem of what I referred to as "fringe". In the case of what cannot be 'repeated' as an observation, how can anything more than reinterpretation actually work to improve a theory that lacks consistency with another? It cannot be repeatable. I noticed that you said "most" which is irrelevant where they may exist. It is the ones that are NOT able to be repeatable that often get hidden amongst the support of even other theories that use observations that DO have phenomena that can be re-observed.

Addition Edit: I googled "fringe" for this definition and got this:

 

 

fringe

frinj/

noun

1. 1.

   an ornamental border of threads left loose or formed into tassels or twists, used to edge clothing or material.

   synonyms: edging, edge, border, trimming, frill, flounce, ruffle; More
2. 2.

   chiefly British term for bangs (see bang¹ (sense 2 of the noun)).

adjective

1. 1.

   not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.

   "fringe theater"

verb

1. 1.

   decorate (clothing or material) with a fringe.

   "a rich robe of gold, fringed with black velvet"

   synonyms: trim, edge, hem, border, bind, braid;

I like the coincidence of the British noun definition of the use of "bangs" (for hair in the front) as it reminds one of "Big Bang(s)"

 

I see the word "periphal" there. Maybe I could call it "Periphal" Sciences?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Reg Prescott]

This distinction is what had been missing in many of the op's examples. I think it has been described in the thread as confusing observations with theory.

 

And for the record, SB, many of the observations in cosmology and qm are repeatable. In qm most experiments are repeatable. Your definition of fringe just indicates a lack of understanding of where those areas of physics are. Which doesn't help your general argument.

 

Erm, I'm pretty sure I haven't used the word "fringe" throughout the thread. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

Which wouldn't appear to help your critique.

[Klaynos]

 

Erm, I'm pretty sure I haven't used the word "fringe" throughout the thread. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

Which wouldn't appear to help your critique.

Yes sorry, SM, not SB.

I see the word "periphal" there. Maybe I could call it "Periphal" Sciences?

The word you're looking for is mainstream.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes sorry, SM, not SB.

 

The word you're looking for is mainstream.

No, that is inappropriate as it hides my meaning and implies that which is simply popularly acceptable only. It also misleads in that it would imply precisely the vast majority of science in the middle to which I have no concern with. You seem like you're trying to prevent me any acceptable symbol (the word) to use as you disagree to the existence of my own interpretation of the peripheral sciences. Now that I formally used it in context in this last sentence, does this make sense for you or are you totally confused or emotionally disturbed of me using it?

[Klaynos]

I think if you continue to use it you are likely to confuse people who have yet to tread your new definition of the word.

[swansont]

No, that is inappropriate as it hides my meaning and implies that which is simply popularly acceptable only. It also misleads in that it would imply precisely the vast majority of science in the middle to which I have no concern with. You seem like you're trying to prevent me any acceptable symbol (the word) to use as you disagree to the existence of my own interpretation of the peripheral sciences. Now that I formally used it in context in this last sentence, does this make sense for you or are you totally confused or emotionally disturbed of me using it?

 

As has already been pointed out, your characterization of the situation is wrong, and misappropriation of vocabulary is confusing. Do you have any examples of "the first one to create a story that fits" going unchallenged? Any examples of actual theories that cropped up based on unrepeatable observations?

[Scott Mayers]

 

As has already been pointed out, your characterization of the situation is wrong, and misappropriation of vocabulary is confusing. Do you have any examples of "the first one to create a story that fits" going unchallenged? Any examples of actual theories that cropped up based on unrepeatable observations?

Where have you or others established something I said was 'wrong'? And what is my "misappropriation of vocabulary" here? I very clearly spelled out how I used a word and was fair to explain what I meant to which I have been begged to either NOT use any word for it or to one that is inappropriately biasing of my meaning.

 

And "the first one to create a story that fits" going unchallenged? Any examples of actual theories that cropped up based on unrepeatable observations?"

is a different issue than the quote on the term, "fringe".

 

As to the question of a "first story", I'm referring to the extraneous explanation of one's theory that aids in the human understanding according to the original author's use of it in ones' theory based on observations that equally have interpretations upon them too.

 

As an example, in Einstein's Special & General Relativity, the thought experiments regarding how he derived and interpreted that time itself was what alters in an frames can be inversed as an interpretation of matter itself changing with respect to the same background. This 'story' was intended to describe time as an essence that alters based on a dismissal of the ether as a real entity in itself. It is no different to interpret his same results even respecting all observations to address this interpretation. Modern QM accepts space as consisting of substantial meaning to which is just a re-introduction of ether with the same intentional meaning that was questioned in the past but dismissed.

 

But instead of redressing that which many people relied on for the hero worship of authoritarian interpretation of which many depended upon, the institution of science forces the new theories to redefine things back into theory that hides this relationship instead of abandoning or challenging the old one. And it prevents the reconciliation between the logical inconsistencies between those extremes (peripheral sciences).

Edited October 10, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[swansont]

Where have you or others established something I said was 'wrong'? And what is my "misappropriation of vocabulary" here? I very clearly spelled out how I used a word and was fair to explain what I meant to which I have been begged to either NOT use any word for it or to one that is inappropriately biasing of my meaning.

By having actual scientists telling you it's wrong. The misappropriation of vocabulary has been established and you acknowledged it. You even offered up an alternative. Telling us how you use a word really isn't how vocabulary works.

 

And "the first one to create a story that fits" going unchallenged? Any examples of actual theories that cropped up based on unrepeatable observations?"

is a different issue than the quote on the term, "fringe".

 

Yes, it is.

 

As to the question of a "first story", I'm referring to the extraneous explanation of one's theory that aids in the human understanding according to the original author's use of it in ones' theory based on observations that equally have interpretations upon them too.

 

As an example, in Einstein's Special & General Relativity, the thought experiments regarding how he derived and interpreted that time itself was what alters in an frames can be inversed as an interpretation of matter itself changing with respect to the same background. This 'story' was intended to describe time as an essence that alters based on a dismissal of the ether as a real entity in itself. It is no different to interpret his same results even respecting all observations to address this interpretation. Modern QM accepts space as consisting of substantial meaning to which is just a re-introduction of ether with the same intentional meaning that was questioned in the past but dismissed.

Nope. QM incorporates relativity and has no preferred frames. There is no ether. (details of this can be discussed in another thread, of course)

 

But instead of redressing that which many people relied on for the hero worship of authoritarian interpretation of which many depended upon, the institution of science forces the new theories to redefine things back into theory that hides this relationship instead of abandoning challenging the old one. And it prevents the reconciliation between the logical inconsistencies between those extremes (peripheral sciences).

No need to redress anything, AFAICT, and the acceptance of relativity has nothing to do with hero worship.

 

Care to try again?

[Scott Mayers]

i don't disagree with relativity. I disagree with the accidental interpretation in its explanation that fit with regards to speaking of time as an entity based on an inappropriate dismissal of space as having meaning.

 

You are severely wrong on your interpretation of vocabulary. It is NOT fixed for the sake of conversing such as here, especially when you are relating this to others in communication. Any discussing IS the function of dialectic and requires negotiating terms to try to understand each other. This is an example of the gap between science and philosophy here.

 

When people jump to find offense by others who raise questions, especially supposed scientists (of whom I don't even have evidence of this upon people's preference for anonymity here without their onus to argue it without asking of faith from me.)

I don't want to digress into this particular example as I only raised it with respect to the topic. But for extension on the example for which you accept no meaning to space as it was understood, then I'll use an example which I am presently discussing with other friends elsewhere.

 

In the following diagram, I define a logical "universal" as the rectangles there. I define both of these as "spaces" of which I interpret as "ether" as what was initially questioned in the past. Matter will be what is in black and if or where there is no matter, it is the background. I opt for the left version to illustrate what I understand as matter and why it would necessitate a real meaning to space as it contrasts what matter can mean. On the right is what I interpret is how you would require thinking if space has no real meaning in kind to the ether concept. You will no doubt disagree to my understanding of ether but I assure you this must be the correct interpretation as it is the only rationale for why Einstein would opt to interpret time as an essence that changes and not matter.

 

 

How do you interpret this or why do you likely disagree?

[Strange]

Where have you or others established something I said was 'wrong'?

 

You said that various branches of science are not based on repeated observation and experiment. That is (pretty obviously) false.

 

And what is my "misappropriation of vocabulary" here?

 

"Fringe science" is a well established term that you are using to mean something different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science

i don't disagree with relativity. I disagree with the accidental interpretation in its explanation that fit with regards to speaking of time as an entity based on an inappropriate dismissal of space as having meaning.

 

I don't really know what that means. The interpretation or explanation provide by relativity is that the 4D geometry of space-time is observer dependent; it puts time on the same basis as space, as a geometrical dimension. It does not dismiss space.

 

How do you interpret this or why do you likely disagree?

 

 

I interpret it as totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Unless you have some repeatable, experimental evidence for the existence of the "ether". (Even then it is irrelevant, and would require its own thread, in Speculations, to discuss it.)

[swansont]

You are severely wrong on your interpretation of vocabulary. It is NOT fixed for the sake of conversing such as here, especially when you are relating this to others in communication. Any discussing IS the function of dialectic and requires negotiating terms to try to understand each other. This is an example of the gap between science and philosophy here.

You're going to have to define each word in this paragraph for me, since you just conveyed that I can't rely on a dictionary to tell me what these words mean. That's what happens when you demand that you can assign any definition to any word that you wish. Thus you could be paraphrasing Shakespeare, for all I know.

 

Further, I think you're a buck-toothed, inbred idiot.

 

 

(Following your precedent, I will supply the definitions I have assigned to those words at a later time)

 

[Scott Mayers]

You said that various branches of science are not based on repeated observation and experiment. That is (pretty obviously) false.

Declared without responding to what I provide in explanation. If you read earlier you'd see that I explained how certain phenomena are either 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated as a NEW observation and lack an ability to 'experiment' on due to its pure interpretation of it as is (like looking at a specific photo in which one interprets X but could not be allowed to be reinterpreted because of the requirement to add an extra novel observation. This disrespects that the interpretation is allowed to be challenged by default. This is absolutely irrational.

 

 

 

"Fringe science" is a well established term that you are using to mean something different.That is (pretty obviously) false.

 

 

I already anticipated this and responded to it by addressing it. To avoid confusion, call it "peripheral sciences" or are you still confused?

 

 

I don't really know what that means. The interpretation or explanation provide by relativity is that the 4D geometry of space-time is observer dependent; it puts time on the same basis as space, as a geometrical dimension. It does not dismiss space.

 

 

I accept the interpretation of space as being a product of a 4th dimensional factor. The "space-time" though is not correct in my view. I prefer "expansion-of-space/time" because Einstein was pressured by his time to infer that the ether (space as substance) was non-existent and why he explained that time itself alters and not that things move through a background which affects it.

 

On the last note of my diagram for the last post:

 

The diagram above represents how space interpreted without substantial meaning has to act as if matter was random access memory and the spaces between matter are a function of the process of the programs that define their meaning as differing delays in time given to load and store from one location to another.

You're going to have to define each word in this paragraph for me, since you just conveyed that I can't rely on a dictionary to tell me what these words mean. That's what happens when you demand that you can assign any definition to any word that you wish. Thus you could be paraphrasing Shakespeare, for all I know.

 

Further, I think you're a buck-toothed, inbred idiot.

 

 

(Following your precedent, I will supply the definitions I have assigned to those words at a later time)

 

Ditto. And since you've proven that you've reduced yourself as a moderator to severe trolling yourself here, I've clearly hit some nerve of sincere conflict with your mental faculties. I used to live in D.C., but I'm Canadian, like your avatar, but am guessing that you're closer kin to those buck-toothed, inbreds just south of you in those Shenandoah hills of Virginia you accuse me of, right?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[swansont]

 

Ditto. And since you've proven that you've reduced yourself as a moderator to severe trolling yourself here, I've clearly hit some nerve of sincere conflict with your mental faculties. I used to live in D.C., but I'm Canadian, like your avatar, but am guessing that you're closer kin to those buck-toothed, inbreds just south of you in those Shenandoah hills of Virginia you accuse me of, right?

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I used the phrase, "buck-toothed, inbred idiot" to mean "wrong". Which makes your paragraph quite nonsensical.

 

But this is the way vocabulary works, eh?

Declared without responding to what I provide in explanation. If you read earlier you'd see that I explained how certain phenomena are either 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated as a NEW observation and lack an ability to 'experiment' on due to its pure interpretation of it as is (like looking at a specific photo in which one interprets X but could not be allowed to be reinterpreted because of the requirement to add an extra novel observation. This disrespects that the interpretation is allowed to be challenged by default. This is absolutely irrational.

 

I will once again ask for an example of this happening.

 

(Straw man arguments are often irrational, BTW)

[Strange]

Declared without responding to what I provide in explanation. If you read earlier you'd see that I explained how certain phenomena are either 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated as a NEW observation and lack an ability to 'experiment' on due to its pure interpretation of it as is (like looking at a specific photo in which one interprets X but could not be allowed to be reinterpreted because of the requirement to add an extra novel observation. This disrespects that the interpretation is allowed to be challenged by default. This is absolutely irrational.

 

(As an aside, you should proof read your sentences before posting. They are often very confusing. Note the lack of a closing bracket in the above, for example. It makes it hard to guess where the parenthetical clause ends.)

 

I don't think you have established any such thing. Can you give an exmaple of something that is 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated in quantum mechanics? Experiments and observations are repeated all the time, as well as new experiments to test the theory being devised.

 

In cosmology, while I will concede that there just a single universe, people are constantly reviewing the models and working out new predictions to be tested, and then devising new experiments to test them. Or, occasionally, coming across new observations by chance. This is how the steady state model(s) were eventually rejected, because of the growing level of evidence that could not be reconciled with the theory.

 

New observations, with increasing detail and therefore new information, are constantly being made of the CMB, for example. When I worked at a university in my youth, one of the experiments I did some work on was to measure the CMB. Then, the best we could hope for was to measure the temperature more accurately and perhaps find some spatial variation (there was none within the level of accuracy of our measurements at the time). Now far more is known and new models can be eveloped and tested against it.

 

Similarly, new observations of more distant red-shift values showed an unexpected acceleration of expansion, which requires new theory to explain it. Similarly, new observations of galaxies has led to the need to hypothesize dark matter.

 

I see nothing 'fixed' in any of the above. I see no inability to do repeated observation and experiment. In short, I say your claim is wrong.

 

 

To avoid confusion, call it "peripheral sciences" or are you still confused?

 

As explained above, the category you wish to name does not exist.

 

[To avoid breaking the forum rules, I will ignore your "fringe" theory]

[Scott Mayers]

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I used the phrase, "buck-toothed, inbred idiot" to mean "wrong". Which makes your paragraph quite nonsensical.

 

But this is the way vocabulary works, eh?

 

I will once again ask for an example of this happening.

 

(Straw man arguments are often irrational, BTW)

The problem is you could rationally use "wrong" as it is commonly available. I used "fringe" to use a word that closely fits with what I was intending where I didn't have a source reference to define "the sciences of the very large and very small". I also clarified it for you and negotiated a more appropriate term to which you lack yourself. At least I DID define what I meant with clarity.

 

(As an aside, you should proof read your sentences before posting. They are often very confusing. Note the lack of a closing bracket in the above, for example. It makes it hard to guess where the parenthetical clause ends.)

 

I don't think you have established any such thing. Can you give an exmaple of something that is 'fixed' and thus unable to be repeated in quantum mechanics? Experiments and observations are repeated all the time, as well as new experiments to test the theory being devised.

 

In cosmology, while I will concede that there just a single universe, people are constantly reviewing the models and working out new predictions to be tested, and then devising new experiments to test them. Or, occasionally, coming across new observations by chance. This is how the steady state model(s) were eventually rejected, because of the growing level of evidence that could not be reconciled with the theory.

 

New observations, with increasing detail and therefore new information, are constantly being made of the CMB, for example. When I worked at a university in my youth, one of the experiments I did some work on was to measure the CMB. Then, the best we could hope for was to measure the temperature more accurately and perhaps find some spatial variation (there was none within the level of accuracy of our measurements at the time). Now far more is known and new models can be eveloped and tested against it.

 

Similarly, new observations of more distant red-shift values showed an unexpected acceleration of expansion, which requires new theory to explain it. Similarly, new observations of galaxies has led to the need to hypothesize dark matter.

 

I see nothing 'fixed' in any of the above. I see no inability to do repeated observation and experiment. In short, I say your claim is wrong.

 

 

As explained above, the category you wish to name does not exist.

 

[To avoid breaking the forum rules, I will ignore your "fringe" theory]

I'm still unfamiliar with the quoting here. I don't like the non-intuitive means for it here and you can't embed quotes in other quotes. I tried the tags with appropriate use that works randomly for some reason. I'll figure it out.

 

I'll avoid responding to my disapproval of specific science theory here unless I come across others who have a background in philosophy and logic relates to these issues.

 

Perhaps it might help if I get some background on your own education and to determine what you may have taken regarding formal logic if you had this in your curricula? I know this is taught in practice through math but you don't usually require the depths other than for practical means. They no longer even teach Euclidean geometry as a traditional means in high schools to introduce formal philosophical means and skip to summary proofs if any.

[Strange]

I didn't have a source reference to define "the sciences of the very large and very small".

 

How about: "science"?

[Scott Mayers]

The point is to be more specific for understanding what one means. I don't have a grievance with all of science nor to much of its methods and values. I question what I understand SillyBilly was referring to with similar concerns. It is about philosophy and how restrictively biased many in science today interpret things inappropriately.

 

As to this thread, the concept of "testing" as one factor of contention is problematic to apply universally to all of science as defined through a strict interpretation of relying on the "Scientific Method ". The areas of contention are to theories on the extremes, for whatever the hell you want to call them.

 

Take the subject of black holes, for example. This phenomena can rationally be interpreted to exist merely on the basis of light being able to be bent against it's straight-line trajectory from large masses. Yet what goes on to interpretations to the depths that go beyond actually witnessing this upon observing them to the depths of presuming things like "worm holes" is as much "fringe" to the extremes by other's interpretations in the same light.

 

That's only an obvious extreme example to which I'm guessing you can accept. (maybe?)

[Strange]

et what goes on to interpretations to the depths that go beyond actually witnessing this upon observing them to the depths of presuming things like "worm holes" is as much "fringe" to the extremes by other's interpretations in the same light.

 

OK. Wormholes come out of exploring the math of relativity (i.e. they are not a "presumption"). They are an interesting artefact but I don't think many people consider them to be real (like singularities). There is certainly no evidence for them (at present) so they are not part of mainstream science.

 

So you seem to be condeming all of astrophysics because of some obscure mathematical results that are really only popular with journalists and science fiction writers.

[Scott Mayers]

 

OK. Wormholes come out of exploring the math of relativity (i.e. they are not a "presumption"). They are an interesting artefact but I don't think many people consider them to be real (like singularities). There is certainly no evidence for them (at present) so they are not part of mainstream science.

 

So you seem to be condeming all of astrophysics because of some obscure mathematical results that are really only popular with journalists and science fiction writers.

No. But I was asked to provide some example in an implication that nothing was out of the "mainstream" as nothing significantly unusually different lay on the "fringes". And while you are right about relativity 'predicting' worm holes. It is the interpretation upon time and not matter as significant that contributes to this guess.

 

I clearly indicated problems with judging only observations that relate to interpretation and to fixed forms of observations with respect to time (cosmological scale) or the statistical spread in measures that are always the same in atomic physics, like constants to radioactive decay. They cannot be 'experimented' upon to dislodge potential false interpretations for better ones as we are not permitted to present anything new without an equally novel type of observation.

[swansont]

I clearly indicated problems with judging only observations that relate to interpretation and to fixed forms of observations with respect to time (cosmological scale) or the statistical spread in measures that are always the same in atomic physics, like constants to radioactive decay. They cannot be 'experimented' upon to dislodge potential false interpretations for better ones as we are not permitted to present anything new without an equally novel type of observation.

 

What's preventing you from doing experiments related to radioactive decay?

 

As far as needing new observations for cosmological events, yes, you do. Why is this an issue? You have yet to present an example of any theory that is based on a single observation of an event. IOW, you haven't shown that the situation you object to actually exists.

[Scott Mayers]

 

What's preventing you from doing experiments related to radioactive decay?

 

As far as needing new observations for cosmological events, yes, you do. Why is this an issue? You have yet to present an example of any theory that is based on a single observation of an event. IOW, you haven't shown that the situation you object to actually exists.

I think you are just not following the logic by perspective only. You seem to perceive 'science' as a subject area that must be confined to expediency to practice. Those of us who come from a different perspective see that we must include philosophy to be included within the umbrella of science and philosophy collectively. The method is only relevant for those things that you can both observe upon reality AND to those that have affect upon those objects in real experiments. For instance, you cannot impose any change to a distant star in order to experiment upon it like we do with local experiments where we can have controls and blinds in place to isolate these things in a lab. But for the extreme sciences on the peripherals, much of these are beyond our capacity to use such methods. So it requires a distinctly different approach for those things as a distinctly different method of approach. For these areas, they require philosophy as it analyzes interpretation of observations and logic with a higher priority over strict empiricism.

 

As to your question on radioactivity, you seem to be suggesting that one could actually disprove certain constants discovered. They are discovered, and remain fixed and thus even break the rules of the very method because you cannot present a realistic disproof. Thus it relies on the interpretation of observations and such phenomena with a greater priority and why you cannot use things like 'predictability' as a necessary qualifying need to present a new theory. It is like how a religion uses example PAST prophets who appear to successfully 'predict' some other reality that occurred IN the past to justify their validity and soundness. It is remote from disproof and actually completely irrational to use as a justification for trust in those supposed claims. It reduces us to requiring faith in the authorities promoting these as sufficient 'evidence' to rely on.

 

For instance, will the decay of U-235, ever change? We might find a more accurate means to measure it but these are only about our capacity to fine-tuning them more precisely. However, we might be incorrect as to its actual 'causes'. It is this that is the philosophical part of science external to method alone.

I mentioned how I see this as about politics too because I understand that philosophy is the father class over science. And since those like yourself who may practice science, you may inappropriately think that your invested practice is sufficient to be the authority over its subject. The problem is like a company like GM with its management competing with its workers to control its success. The scientists who practice are like the front-end workers who learn specific hands-on techniques through experience. This is advantageous and should NOT be dismissed, but it is the management who acts as the part who defines how and whether the company as a whole exists or persists. There are those in management who would certainly try to command with absolution in the belief that the workers have zero substantial value; but then there are also the workers who also create unions who also try to command and believe they should take absolute precedence as if the company was merely a function to employ them.

 

This conflict is what exists between understanding how we need to reconcile the science with respect to philosophy as management. I think that both play a role in each other under the same banner. The empirical method as a sole approach to discovery, truth, or fact, is short-sighted. It is also NOT true even IN practice for some things as I've pointed out with regards to the peripheral extremes.

 

LINK to digress on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91533-how-scientific-method-isnt-sufficient-an-example-why/?p=887735

Edited October 11, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Reg Prescott]

I suppose we're all somewhat inured by now to the bumptious and tiresome assertions often made by the religious with respect to their pet deities, usually taking the form:

"God is [this] and God is [that]" ... seldom qualified by a humble 'in my opinion', and laden with the implication that the announcer is the sole authority on this matter... 'so never mind what anyone else has to say'.

Yawn!

Twas ever thus, eh? What I find far more disheartening, though, is the penchant of science aficionados, and even scientists themselves, to perpetrate the same hubris with the same degree of alacrity. We've seen it in abundance in our own homely little thread right here, I regret to say.

"Science is [this] and science is [that]" ...

I hope other members will enjoy this historical talk by Stathis Psillos on what some of science's pin-ups have had to say about what science is, what its aims ought to be, and most germane to ourselves, the appropriate epistemic attitude to adopt vis-à-vis scientific knowledge: realist or instrumentalist.

Psillos' peroration in the final two minutes may be salutary to those of a more, er... ebullient disposition.

Does science yield only truth? Of course not.

Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not.

But I think we knew that already, didn't we, boys and girls?

Edited October 11, 2015 by Reg Prescott