Scientific testing (split from goal of science)

[Scott Mayers]

SillyBilly,

 

I haven't been investing much on the specific background you presented here and though I agree on the question of 'predictability' to some degree, I can't speak to whether we precisely agree on your specific take. It may be what is also preventing others to follow if they haven't had the same background.

 

My approach here only tries to relate generically and to those I can determine where they are coming from specifically through the present dialect. So I won't comment on the detailed descriptions using the terms you are presenting as it would require a different investment for me to learn those terms. Instead, I've focused on strict argument to the case of questioning method on my own terms as well as to try to discover a common means to communicate this from what I can infer is the views of the opposition here. It doesn't mean I'll succeed but am just trying a different way.

 

I'll be opening a different thread to provide an example in history to follow up from my last post above. It should demonstrate how interpretations on theory get locked in place even without intention that makes many scientists diverge including the divergence from philosophy. I believe that 'predictability' is an internal function of the method that is still needed but believe that we need a separate method or more to operate on different areas or kinds of science. My focused interest is on the extremes of Cosmology to Atomic physics.

[swansont]

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.

 

You aren't the first one to show up and say this requires philosophy, but be absolutely silent when asked for examples. Until you can provide some, this is just an empty assertion.

 

Yes, certain areas of science do not allow direct experimentation, so we have to do something else in order to confirm hypotheses. (One reason/example why there is no single recipe for the scientific method). However, in some cases there are experiments we can do in the lab, (e.g. for stellar nucleosynthesis we can measure reaction cross-section in an accelerator)and in some cases we require more observations. It also depends on whether we are observing first and coming up with the model, or finding examples that have already been predicted.

 

 

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.

One could absolutely disprove the constants by experiment, if they were not, in fact, constant. How else do things get disproven? Does philosophy disprove science? (outside of the philosophy that's already part of science, that is) And I wonder how SillyBilly feels about that, given how contrary to realism it is.

 

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.

But how does that affect the science? And how would you know if the philosophy has given you the "right" mechanism?

 

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.

Once again, you are long on assertion, short on examples. Given the importance you have assigned to this, they should be plentiful, easy to find and spread throughout all disciplines. OTOH, if they are hard to find, then one might logically conclude that they are not widespread, and (at best) only appear in a few specific sub-disciplines of science.

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!

 

Unless you are asserting that science is a religion, how is this relevant?

 

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?

Yes, we knew that. I don't think anybody else has argued to the contrary. Neither of those statements have been raised as the discussion points.

 

I'll be opening a different thread to provide an example in history to follow up from my last post above. It should demonstrate how interpretations on theory get locked in place even without intention that makes many scientists diverge including the divergence from philosophy. I believe that 'predictability' is an internal function of the method that is still needed but believe that we need a separate method or more to operate on different areas or kinds of science. My focused interest is on the extremes of Cosmology to Atomic physics.

 

Oh, please do. I've been asking for an example for quite some time.

[Scott Mayers]

swansont,

 

Please refrain from accusing me of being somehow against science as a whole for my dissension. I am demanding inclusion. Philosophy is the functioning source of even the method itself. You responded prior to reading the whole thing or you would have seen the link to the example I provide in a new thread. But it wasn't even necessary for some of this unless you believe you are defending science as one absolute and perfectly functioning entity. I am not an enemy here.

 

If it helps to clarify, let me explain a little of my background justification for the way I proceed and why.

 

First off, for any science or math classes I've taken, I've been the top of my class. However, contrary to my present writing, in the past from high school on, I had a writers block due to certain personal issues which for whatever reason prevented me from necessary essay writing that is essential to further education. I had proceeded on regardless both on my own and eventually other extra post-secondary classes with good results. But I still struggled until more recent times.

 

However, I had already by then invested in a lot of my own self-driven pursuit in most areas and my best means was to study X until I got to some point of confusion (or boredom) and then try to seek solution to my confusion by digressing into another areas Y until or if I resolved the problem. If I had solved this I'd return to where I left off in X. I did this continuously but it is backwards to the traditional approach through the abstraction processes that those like you may have proceeded from.

 

In avid interest I thus approach this foundationally and though it may lack the same means to attend to it the way you may have, I learned it has a lot of advantages because it enables you to see across different subjects without perfect specialty in any one area (at least yet). I have overcome my writing difficulties and hang with various professionals and students from my own location.

 

As such, while I might appear odd to you, [and I speak for others who come here in the same type of process of learning], I assure you I'm competent enough. My only 'weakness' these days is that as I grow older, I lack being able to always recall all that I learned without hesitation and care. This weakness is common among similar learners because it lacks the means of practice and repetition of the things you would or should learn through a university degree.

 

It's why I stand for those who come here or other forums who often get dismissed offhand for their apparent oddities. And why I tackle approaching this up front by attending to appeal to charity. I too have to apply this to you or others as I don't simply trust one's apparent formal qualifications is assurance that one knows what they've been fortunate enough to achieve through institutions.

 

I hope this helps you be a little more patient, not simply with me, but others. You'd be surprised what can come out of the apparent nut case if you simply give them space and faith as a human being. The only hope to defeating bad religious/pseudoscience thinking is to approach people this way. I at least am trying to appeal through my own example, including my own errors.

 

Thank you.

 

P.S. You did notice that link in the last post I added later? It's a new thread.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[swansont]

swansont,

 

Please refrain from accusing me of being somehow against science as a whole for my dissension. I am demanding inclusion. Philosophy is the functioning source of even the method itself. You responded prior to reading the whole thing or you would have seen the link to the example I provide in a new thread. But it wasn't even necessary for some of this unless you believe you are defending science as one absolute and perfectly functioning entity. I am not an enemy here.

 

Where have I accused you of being against science? Why is it required that I must be "defending science as one absolute and perfectly functioning entity" to think you are wrong?

 

You say you are demanding inclusion. My response is that you need to justify your demand, to show that it is necessary. Your example is bogus, and unfortunately you chose to dredge up an example form a closed thread. But, as I have noted, if this is as you claim, then finding other example should be a piece of cake.

[Scott Mayers]

P.S.S. note:

 

I strongly believe that the next era in education will involve more who learn the way I and others have since the Internet since we no longer require institutional rigidity to have the luxury to learn online. Institutions will still persist as is but they need to embrace the two general approaches by taking advantage of respecting the powers of each way distinctly yet even more powerful when working together. This will eventually be a norm. I even know of a friend who raises his kid solely by means of zero pressure and internet-only learning. His kids are way ahead in their thinking even while losing other advantages of the average person.

 

Where have I accused you of being against science? Why is it required that I must be "defending science as one absolute and perfectly functioning entity" to think you are wrong?

 

You say you are demanding inclusion. My response is that you need to justify your demand, to show that it is necessary. Your example is bogus, and unfortunately you chose to dredge up an example form a closed thread. But, as I have noted, if this is as you claim, then finding other example should be a piece of cake.

I'll try to be patient with you. But you need to reassess your own approach. Declaring me 'bogus' is just as absurd without directly responding to the particular content. I'm also respecting the high likelihood that most students of the sciences here are relatively less socially astute and likely one of the reasons for your lack of ability to relate to non-formal-scientists.

 

So I'll wait to see if in that thread you can pinpoint your own dissent against the reasoning there.

Why the hell did you close my thread? I had NOT seen or referenced any damn previous discussion elsewhere and would appreciate that you'd have the decency to reopen it rather than be an ass.

[Reg Prescott]

SillyBilly,

 

I haven't been investing much on the specific background you presented here and though I agree on the question of 'predictability' to some degree, I can't speak to whether we precisely agree on your specific take. It may be what is also preventing others to follow if they haven't had the same background.

 

My approach here only tries to relate generically and to those I can determine where they are coming from specifically through the present dialect. So I won't comment on the detailed descriptions using the terms you are presenting as it would require a different investment for me to learn those terms. Instead, I've focused on strict argument to the case of questioning method on my own terms as well as to try to discover a common means to communicate this from what I can infer is the views of the opposition here. It doesn't mean I'll succeed but am just trying a different way.

 

I'll be opening a different thread to provide an example in history to follow up from my last post above. It should demonstrate how interpretations on theory get locked in place even without intention that makes many scientists diverge including the divergence from philosophy. I believe that 'predictability' is an internal function of the method that is still needed but believe that we need a separate method or more to operate on different areas or kinds of science. My focused interest is on the extremes of Cosmology to Atomic physics.

 

Hi Scott,

 

Glad to hear your thoughts. To be honest, I sometimes have difficulty understanding your posts -- this may be due to my own limitations, of course -- but I enjoy reading your ideas nonetheless.

 

I would like to add (and I don't believe this is a trivial matter) that I find the savagery of some of the comments I've seen hurled in your direction at once shocking and deplorable, all the more since I've never seen you be abusive to anyone in my limited experience here. Readers may refer to post # 264 in this very thread for an example -- and that's from a moderator! (a moderator whose primary task as far as I can see from my short time here is to belittle and humiliate other members)

 

This, of course, is a very old story: You don't think like us therefore there's something wrong with you therefore we're going to hurt you.

 

Be well, Scott. My thoughts are with you.

 

Colin

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks Colin,

 

The admin closed my thread. He's likely threatened by what I might prove anyways. Note that I did manage to fix the grammar prior to others responding as I reread it and noticed certain clerical errors there.

 

I'm not welcome here by this guy for clearly personal reasons and so will be leaving. I find it interesting that he hides behind anonymity here and so question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it. It was nice to meet you. See you around if you're elsewhere.

 

Scott.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The admin closed my thread. He's likely threatened by what I might prove anyways.

I'm not welcome here by this guy for clearly personal reasons

How?

For a start, a collection of admins closed the thread- it's seldom a unilateral decision apart from closing down blatant spam.

And, since there's a reason given when they shut the thread down, you know what that reason is, and it isn't because they were threatened, is it?

 

Then there's the point that you know next to nothing about any of the admins- so you can hardly threaten them.

 

Thirdly, based on your behaviour so far you are not going to prove anything.

 

It can't possibly be for personal reasons because nobody here knows you personally.

 

and re.

"he hides behind anonymity here and so question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it. "

Well, those of us who are in a position to understand his work are well aware of the validity of his credentials.

So, when you say you "question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it. " well, simply no, that's not likely to be a part of it, because it's not a valid basis.

 

What you have done there is highlight your own ignorance.

[Scott Mayers]

How?

For a start, a collection of admins closed the thread- it's seldom a unilateral decision apart from closing down blatant spam.

And, since there's a reason given when they shut the thread down, you know what that reason is, and it isn't because they were threatened, is it?

 

Then there's the point that you know next to nothing about any of the admins- so you can hardly threaten them.

 

Thirdly, based on your behaviour so far you are not going to prove anything.

 

It can't possibly be for personal reasons because nobody here knows you personally.

 

and re.

"he hides behind anonymity here and so question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it. "

Well, those of us who are in a position to understand his work are well aware of the validity of his credentials.

So, when you say you "question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it. " well, simply no, that's not likely to be a part of it, because it's not a valid basis.

 

What you have done there is highlight your own ignorance.

You guys are severely proving to be extreme elitists here. I am only gaining less confidence, not more, to which you purport to be serving. You guys do not serve justice to persist as you do and am sufficiently qualified in my own right to guess you're going to only meet with your own demise due solely on your lack of appropriate etiquette to respect others. You reduce to another conservative religion. Or...maybe this was your political intent?

[John Cuthber]

Exactly what elite group am I a member of?

[swansont]

I'll try to be patient with you. But you need to reassess your own approach. Declaring me 'bogus' is just as absurd without directly responding to the particular content. I'm also respecting the high likelihood that most students of the sciences here are relatively less socially astute and likely one of the reasons for your lack of ability to relate to non-formal-scientists.

 

So I'll wait to see if in that thread you can pinpoint your own dissent against the reasoning there.

I did not declare you bogus, I declared your example bogus. It's quite clear: "Your example is bogus"

Is reading comprehension a problem here, or are you willfully misrepresenting this?

 

Being possibly less socially astute is probably not the issue (though astute enough to see that this could be construed as insulting to some). It's probably more that non-formal-scientists do not have experience actually doing formal science, and are merely projecting misconceptions onto the issues.

 

Discussing your thread closure would be off-topic for this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91546-thread-closure/

I would like to add (and I don't believe this is a trivial matter) that I find the savagery of some of the comments I've seen hurled in your direction at once shocking and deplorable, all the more since I've never seen you be abusive to anyone in my limited experience here. Readers may refer to post # 264 in this very thread for an example -- and that's from a moderator! (a moderator whose primary task as far as I can see from my short time here is to belittle and humiliate other members)

 

This, of course, is a very old story: You don't think like us therefore there's something wrong with you therefore we're going to hurt you.

There was no attempt at belittling or humiliation. Just a rebuttal of a claim.

I find it interesting that he hides behind anonymity here and so question his own actual credentials. So that's likely a part of it.

My credentials aren't hard to find. I'm hardly hiding behind anonymity; my user name is based on my actual name.

 

Is "anonymity" another word you have a pet definition for? What does it actually mean?

[Strange]

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.

 

Once again, it is not very clear what you mean. Science is a "practical" endeavour in that it relies on testing models against observation.

 

 

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.

 

Philosophy does not create models and then test them against observation. If it did, it would be science not philosophy.

Does science yield only truth? Of course not.

Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not.

 

Glad to see that you have finally moved to a more reasonable (realistic, if you like) position.

Declaring me 'bogus' is just as absurd ...

 

He didn't declare you bogus. You need to read more carefully. (And also stop assuming that every disagreement is a personal attack.)

He's likely threatened by what I might prove anyways.

 

Yeah. Terrified.

 

I find it interesting that he hides behind anonymity here and so question his own actual credentials.

 

He is not in the least bit anonymous. It would take about 10 seconds to find his full name, where he works, his (occasionally amusing) twitter feed, etc.

[Reg Prescott]

I said (post 275) :

 

Does science yield only truth? Of course not.

Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not.

To which Swansont replied:

Yes, we knew that. I don't think anybody else has argued to the contrary. Neither of those statements have been raised as the discussion points.

And Strange replied:

Glad to see that you have finally moved to a more reasonable (realistic, if you like) position.

 

 

As long as these two gentlemen continue to distort the facts of the thread, I will continue to remind our membership of these facts. Here, once again, are the claims I've been refuting:

 

(i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5)

(ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10)

Edited October 11, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

Nice to see you confirming that it is we who told you that first.

[swansont]

I said (post 275) :

 

Does science yield only truth? Of course not.

Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not.

 

To which Swansont replied:

 

And Strange replied:

 

 

 

As long as these two gentlemen continue to distort the facts of the thread, I will continue to remind our membership of these facts. Here, once again, are the claims I've been refuting:

 

(i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5)

 

(ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10)

If you can't see how those statements don't contradict, then this is pointless.

[Strange]

If you can't see how those statements don't contradict, then this is pointless.

I think he is just pretending not to understand, "for the craic".

[Reg Prescott]

In post # 264 of this thread, a moderator (Swansont) refers to another contributor (Scott Mayers) as a "buck-toothed, inbred idiot" - hedged with smallprint to fool... presumably no one.

I waited a couple of days after the offensive post was made to see what would happen. Nothing did. I then clicked on "report", with a short message voicing my distaste to the staff. That was a week ago. I've received no response and the objectionable post remains to this day.

This raises two questions:

(i) Why has nothing been done?

and much more worryingly

(ii) Why has no one else spoken out against this unacceptable and unnecessary cruelty?

To the administration, I refer you to your own site rules:

Section 2: Posting

To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

Be civil.

No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

[moth]

you may have missed the part where Swasont explaind he was re-defining those words(inbread, bucktooth, and idiot) the same way Scott Mayers was re-defining words to suit his argument, and the meaning of the words Swansont used was NOT insulting.

[Reg Prescott]

No, I didn't miss that part. See what I said above about "hedging".

 

Well, I suppose Swansont could've called Scott a fine-toothed genius, or a muscular adonis, or a silver-tongued cavalier. But he didn't.

 

He chose to call him a "buck-toothed, inbred idiot". Coincidence?

 

Be honest with yourself, friend. It's not me you have to live with. Just you.

[swansont]

No, I didn't miss that part. See what I said above about "hedging".

 

Well, I suppose Swansont could've called Scott a fine-toothed genius, or a muscular adonis, or a silver-tongued cavalier. But he didn't.

 

He chose to call him a "buck-toothed, inbred idiot". Coincidence?

 

Be honest with yourself, friend. It's not me you have to live with. Just you.

If I had said those things it wouldn't have the same effect in the discussion, would it?

In post # 264 of this thread, a moderator (Swansont) refers to another contributor (Scott Mayers) as a "buck-toothed, inbred idiot" - hedged with smallprint to fool... presumably no one.

 

I waited a couple of days after the offensive post was made to see what would happen. Nothing did. I then clicked on "report", with a short message voicing my distaste to the staff. That was a week ago. I've received no response and the objectionable post remains to this day.

 

This raises two questions:

 

(i) Why has nothing been done?

 

and much more worryingly

 

(ii) Why has no one else spoken out against this unacceptable and unnecessary cruelty?

 

 

 

To the administration, I refer you to your own site rules:

 

Section 2: Posting

To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

Be civil.

No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

Since the words were defined to mean "you are wrong", how is that a violation of the rules? (or cruel? Quite melodramatic) I followed the same protocol as SM did — using a personal definition and then in a later post explaining what I meant. The so-called small print was not to fool anyone, but to make the point that if you redefine words to suit your own purpose, you can't communicate effectively with people, since they will interpret the words to mean what they normally mean.

 

Thank you for confirming that point.