 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that measurements
> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the contrary,
> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is* faith.
I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of contradictions to
what one has faith in.
The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to contradict
their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to show you've
misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic example is if you
show someone where the bible says God is evil, they will tell you that
you're misinterpreting the bible.
If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match theory,
the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The second assumption
is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's ever an assumption that
reality is conspiring against you.
> Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
> hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
> Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis.
Sure. Those were just examples of the kind of "what are we missing" ideas.
Nobody says "Well, it's settled, we're the only intelligent life forms,
unless we find evidence otherwise." Instead, it's almost always "we're
pretty sure they're out there, we just don't know why we aren't seeing them."
I think scientists are willing to be proved wrong about a lot of stuff. But
I think there's a handful of things that regardless of the amount of
evidence, scientists will believe they're doing science wrong rather than
admit they are stumped. For example, if physical laws vary, I don't believe
scientists would ever stop looking for a rule by which they can determine
how it varies. I don't think they'll ever stop looking for a way to unify GR
and QM. It's just taken on faith that there's one set of rules that apply to
everything.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2010 1:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable.
>> This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.
>
> Prove, based on certain articles of faith, like that your measurements
> aren't consistently corrupted by evil forces. Which you wouldn't, by
> definition, be able to prove.
>
Uh.. Taking the opposite position.. One would have to presume then that
the universe its consistent, but that the thing confounding the
equations is being overly persistent in creating the appearance of such?
Wouldn't this, in and of itself disprove that the universe can't contain
consistency, since, if it didn't, the thing mucking with the equations
would have a hard time "creating" the appearance of something that even
it can't perceive in the universe?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2010 1:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that
>> measurements
>> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the
>> contrary,
>> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is*
>> faith.
>
> I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of
> contradictions to what one has faith in.
>
> The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to
> contradict their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to
> show you've misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic
> example is if you show someone where the bible says God is evil, they
> will tell you that you're misinterpreting the bible.
>
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match
> theory, the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The
> second assumption is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's
> ever an assumption that reality is conspiring against you.
>
>> Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
>> hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
>> Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis.
>
> Sure. Those were just examples of the kind of "what are we missing"
> ideas. Nobody says "Well, it's settled, we're the only intelligent life
> forms, unless we find evidence otherwise." Instead, it's almost always
> "we're pretty sure they're out there, we just don't know why we aren't
> seeing them."
>
> I think scientists are willing to be proved wrong about a lot of stuff.
> But I think there's a handful of things that regardless of the amount of
> evidence, scientists will believe they're doing science wrong rather
> than admit they are stumped. For example, if physical laws vary, I don't
> believe scientists would ever stop looking for a rule by which they can
> determine how it varies. I don't think they'll ever stop looking for a
> way to unify GR and QM. It's just taken on faith that there's one set of
> rules that apply to everything.
>
At least one, currently sidelined, scientist thinks there is an answer
to this, in the fact that "nano-particles", which are larger than a
photon, still behave in the sort of "wave or particle" fashion. His
hypothesis is that, over a certain number of atoms, gravity sort of
"switches off" QM effects. That, beyond that size, you can't get quantum
effects, because the localized gravity of the particles "in" the object
prevent them contained, and limit how much QM jitter you end up with.
Now, the consequence of this would, presumably, be that the "width" of
the effect narrows, as you get things bigger, i.e., it scatters over an
area less and less, and that, at some point, you just stop seeing a
pattern, instead of solid hits. A few people are experimenting with it
now, but.. most scientists seem to prefer some other solution at the
moment (though what that would be, or why they think the experiment to
work out the threshold size is not worth doing, is beyond me...)
Still, its an interesting idea, and explains nicely why your desk will
never "jump" all into one corner of the room, for no reason. Though.. It
may still leave open the question of why the air in the room doesn't... lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Still, its an interesting idea, and explains nicely why your desk will
> never "jump" all into one corner of the room, for no reason.
I think we already knew that. If you work out the probability that happens,
it's exceedingly low.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:52:27 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Warp wrote:
>> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that
>> measurements
>> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the
>> contrary,
>> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is*
>> faith.
>
> I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of
> contradictions to what one has faith in.
>
> The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to
> contradict their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to
> show you've misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic
> example is if you show someone where the bible says God is evil, they
> will tell you that you're misinterpreting the bible.
>
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match
> theory, the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The
> second assumption is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's
> ever an assumption that reality is conspiring against you.
And the third option is that something unknown is influencing the results.
If the theory matches the majority of results than the unknown influence
becomes the most logical thing to check for.
Said influence may well turn out to be that reality is conspiring against
you; although it's more likely to labeled "unknown" and only speculated
about.
Now of course if reality is just conspiring against you such that only
that one set of results should 'error' the only way to show it was if
every result was different. If they're not it has no reason to be factored
in.
The ball bounces, does it matter if it's red, blue or green? The Sun moves
in the sky in a fixed pattern, does it matter if it's being pushed along
by an invisible scarab? Science only gets involved if the answer is yes;
faith gets involved even if the answer is no ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match theory,
> the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The second assumption
> is that the theory is wrong.
It's not that simple, actually. If you have 1000 different types of
measurements which confirm the theory and 1 measurement which contradicts
it, after corroborating that the measurement is valid the next step is not
to invalidate the theory. The next assumption is usually to see if there
are some *other* causes for the anomaly, and if nothing is found, whether
there are exceptional situations where the universe works differently from
the theory (in which case the theory might need fine-tuning).
Two example cases are the so-called Pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly,
both of which seem to contradict general relativity (AFAIK it's not currently
known whether both are symptoms of the same effect or whether they are
unrelated).
Just because these anomalies exist doesn't mean GR is bogus, even if
astrophysicists are scratching their heads with them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/28/10 12:06, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
>
> If you mean "the universe is deterministic", well if that isn't the
> case, it is impossible to know anything, and we can stop now. There, we
> just explored every possible consequence of that hypothesis. Now if we
> assume that the universe *is* deterministic, we have quite a lot of
> consequences to explore - hence, science exists.
Argument from extreme. The universe could be *mostly* deterministic,
but not entirely.
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/28/10 13:52, Darren New wrote:
>> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that
>> measurements
>> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the
>> contrary,
>> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is*
>> faith.
>
> I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of
> contradictions to what one has faith in.
>
> The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to
> contradict their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to
> show you've misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic
> example is if you show someone where the bible says God is evil, they
> will tell you that you're misinterpreting the bible.
>
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match
> theory, the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The
> second assumption is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's
> ever an assumption that reality is conspiring against you.
Well sure - but that's because they take it on faith that reality
doesn't conspire against you in that manner (as you pointed out originally).
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/28/10 10:58, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I contend that there are at least two things most scientists take on
>> faith, without supporting evidence:
>
> Oh, one more:
>
> 3) Reality is consistent.
> 3A) The physical laws don't change. To the extent they change,
> there is a physical law telling you how the laws change.
> 3B) The physical laws are consistent. (E.g., There *is* an
> as-yet-undiscovered scientific theory unifying QM and GR.)
That *is* a big assumption.
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
> crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
That's a good question. The sort of thing that occurs to me all the time,
really.
I found out in Dallas that my security badge was apparently authorized to
unlock the building but not authorized to turn off the burglar alarm. Why
would you even *make* a system where it was possible to configure it that way?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
