Experiment and Theory vs. Reality

[protonman]

Originally posted by treat2
(From Page 1 of Thread. Approx. 2nd or 3rd post by protonman.)



I'd like to respond to protonman's point's from this post and some others. Regarding the quote above, I trimmed out certain parts of the post, to get to the basic arguments presented, not to quote out of context, or simplify the arguments.

I'd also like to mention something regarding the Scientific Method that was not explicitly stated earlier, and is very important. Generally speaking, there are 3 possible results when an experiment is performed to test something: success, failure, or inconclusive (i.e. possible).

The Scientific Method differs from faith-based beliefs because it states that until proven, a hypothesis is false, as opposed to possible. In other words, although the results of tests may consistently be inconclusive, for any number of reasons, the Scientific Method states that in such cases, what has been tested, remains FALSE, not inconclusive, nor possible.

Now, to protonman's point's, which are separately quoted, from above.


1) "...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something."

The quote was made in the context of the absence of a "reasoned hypothesis" to be tested. By reasoned hypothesis, protonman refers to a "principle" arrived at by logic, deductive reasoning, and what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation.

The "something" in this context refers to an experiment that has a true result, without a reasoned hypothesis that is being tested.

Given protonman's posts, I interpret the premise of the argument quoted above to be:

A hypothesis that is not based on logic, nor deductive reasoning, nor what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation, can not be conclusively experimental verified.

My interpretation appears to be quite different than what was actually quoted above. However, after reading the entire thread several times, and the context in which the quotation was made, it is my best assessment of actual meaning, if not the actual words, of the quotation.

It is certainly fair to say that applying the Scientific Method to a hypothesis for which there is either, no empirical evidence, nor any rational basis for establishing would certainly be not only a misuse of the Scientific Method. Moreover, experimentation of that nature, has no basis in Science, whatsoever.

The quotation is actually baiting an argument, due to what the quotation does not clearly state.


2) "...All experiment can do is nullify something."

This statement is clear, and is actually false.

The although a reasoned hypothesis, tested via the Scientific Method can yield different results (mentioned above), the Scientific Method
can not prove what is not true (i.e. a false result is not proof of what is a true result).

The Scientific Method can prove a hypothesis is true, subsequent to that logic and deductive reasoning can be applied to the true result to conclude what must be false.

The Scientific Method can only be used to prove what is true, it can not prove what is false. That requires logic and deductive reasoning.
Therefore, the quotation above is false. One can not prove a negative
via the Scientific Method!


3) "It can not establish something conclusively."

"It" refers to the Scientific Method.
"conclusively" in the context of protonman's posts is understood to mean a universal result that is true in all known and unknown systems.

The Scientific Method, and verification and validation via repeated testing using varied data, as well as, verification and validation via cross-testing of other known reliable tests establishes what can be accepted as conclusive results, within a system.


Only a fool would argue that s/he knows what is unknown. Protonman's
basis for the argument presumes to know the unknown. Protonman can not assert anything scientific without providing empirical evidence of the assertion. The burden of proof for the assertion(s) of unknown systems rests entirely upon protonman to establish.


4) "In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason."

I don't think anyone would argue that.

Mathematics uses logic and reason, as does Physics.

Protonman's original 2 questions can be scientifically be answered using mathematics to explain the reasoned principles that have yielded positive results, via the Scientific Method.

It should be noted that the reasoned principle, a.k.a. the basis, of a hypothesis is reasoned and the experiment is conducted within a "system", for example: our environment, our solar system, etc.

It is widely believed that OTHER SYSTEMS EXIST, in which it is not logical to assume that the reasoned principle is applicable, and that the positive test results from the tested system, would be false within another system. In fact, the Scientific Method demands such results be false in another system!

These are the systems in which we say that all KNOWN laws of physics
are unknown, and are expected to "break down".

No assertions are known to me personally, that the known laws of physics would hold true in unknown systems.


5) "...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory"

Correct.

Empirical Evidence is grounds for establishment of a Theory a.k.a. Hypothesis.

Experimental agreement is grounds for validating the reliability of the result(s) of the Scientific Method, after applying it to a Theory.

Experimental agreement establishes reliability of valid results.
---------------------------------------------------------

What went wrong with this thread? IMO, There's a lot of baiting that can only be understood after reading the entire thread. Protonman made plenty of assertions, and provided no proof of them. On the other hand, it seems from the tone of the thread, that the 2 initial questions could have been answered mathematically, rather than ONLY asserting that experimentation provides proof. Both sides went to extremes. However, latter in the thread, protonman admitted to baiting in his initial thread post, and what followed.

I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[protonman]

Even the name of this forum shows the bias of the moderators here. Now I understand how other thinkers feel when they go up against the mainstream physics dogma. You people should be ashamed. Your practices are undemocratic and the analogy I made to Nazis earlier is becomming more truthful.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Even the name of this forum shows the bias of the moderators here. Now I understand how other thinkers feel when they go up against the mainstream physics dogma. You people should be ashamed. Your practices are undemocratic and the analogy I made to Nazis earlier is becomming more truthful.

LOL!

Do you realize how "scripted" your posts are? Either you are the same crackpot as we've seen here at least once a month for years, or else you guys must subscribe to a newsletter. Your posting is identical to everyone else who doesn't understand physics and doesn't feel like learning anything about it.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL!

Do you realize how "scripted" your posts are? Either you are the same crackpot as we've seen here at least once a month for years, or else you guys must subscribe to a newsletter. Your posting is identical to everyone else who doesn't understand physics and doesn't feel like learning anything about it.

I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written. What I am questioning is the validity of physics. You seem to have confused my not inability fall victum to your propaganda with a misunderstanding of phyics. In all reality I understand it better than most of the people here. This is evidenced by the fact that you don't even see the thinking behind the questions I raise. You don't understand them so instead of admitting this you just try to shut me up.

Find one place where I show I don't understand physics.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written.

Protonman: "Physics is gayy."

I'm convinced.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written. What I am questioning is the validity of physics. You seem to have confused my not inability fall victum to your propaganda with a misunderstanding of phyics. In all reality I understand it better than most of the people here. This is evidenced by the fact that you don't even see the thinking behind the questions I raise. You don't understand them so instead of admitting this you just try to shut me up.

Find one place where I show I don't understand physics.

Ummm...what you have written shows your LACK of knowledge about physics. Further, what I was commenting on was the fact that you and your fellow crackpots all sound exactly the same...coincidence? Plus, of course, your crackpottery is completely bulletproof, because any attempt to point out your flaws only proves you are right...


...at least on Bizarro World, which is the only place where the things you post make any sense.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by protonman
For example, if I am in a spaceship traveling the speed of light relativity says that I can not walk from one end of the ship to the other. What is the reasoning being this? If all you can say is that there is experimental evidence then your understanding is not complete.

I am surprised no one has picked up on this.

This is exactly what Relativity does not say. As far as relativity is concerned, it does not matter what velocity the ship is traveling relative to the earth, or whatever, since you are only considering movement relative to the ship, it does not matter. The ship is effectively stationary. The reasoning is that there is no evidence for an absolute frame of reference (indeed the existence of one would cause many problems), so all frames are equally valid. Define your frame of reference relative to the ship, and you have no problems.

I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written.

Oopsy!

 

[Zero]

I think we all picked up on it, FZ+...which is why we all questioned his understanding of relativity in the first place. If you don't grasp reference frames, you don't know the first thing about relativity, do you?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by FZ+
I am surprised no one has picked up on this.

This is exactly what Relativity does not say. As far as relativity is concerned, it does not matter what velocity the ship is traveling relative to the earth, or whatever, since you are only considering movement relative to the ship, it does not matter. The ship is effectively stationary. The reasoning is that there is no evidence for an absolute frame of reference (indeed the existence of one would cause many problems), so all frames are equally valid. Define your frame of reference relative to the ship, and you have no problems.

IIRC, there was a response (SelfAdjoint?) - not unlike your own FZ+, but it got lost when key parts of the thread were moved here.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about.

Would you be so kind then as to tell us what you meant?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...what you have written shows your LACK of knowledge about physics.

I challenge you to present one ACTUAL example.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I challenge you to present one ACTUAL example.

But it is so hard to pick just one! How about...

It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
But it is so hard to pick just one! How about...

Then refute what I said. I don't think this is wrong. It is in accordance with physics because it is in accordance with the definition of a wave. A wave is nothing more than the oscillatory motion of a substance. Remove this substance and there is no wave.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Then refute what I said. I don't think this is wrong. It is in accordance with physics because it is in accordance with the definition of a wave. A wave is nothing more than the oscillatory motion of a substance. Remove this substance and there is no wave.

Ummm...maybe in accordance with physics 150 years ago...you should really try to keep up, chum.

 

[treat2]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about.

protonman is an unresponsive waste of bandwith.

S/he has the distinct honor of being the first UserID added to my Ignore List at this Board.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...maybe in accordance with physics 150 years ago...you should really try to keep up, chum.

If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent.

Are you saying that new theories and better evidence cannot supplant old theories and less-compelling evidence?

 

[protonman]

Answer the question

If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today?

.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Answer the question .

It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why.

Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.

If your ideas that we thought to be correct 150 years ago have been shown to be incorrect why should we give any credence to the present ideas. In order to understand my argument shift the same logic back 150 years to when they thought they were correct regarding wave (of course this is all according to you).

The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on. The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.

I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amount of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this. How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.

In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Experimental evidence is not conclusive. It can only eliminate a theory, not establish it. Why? Because if an experiment establishes something it only establishes it in the particular situations the experiment was done in.

I agree that experimental evidence does not constitute absolute proof.

Pervasive establishments are based on reason. If you can establish something based on a reason then you can establish something in all cases.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of "reason" in science, as is made abundantly clear by your reference to mathematics in the next segment (I'll get to that shortly). "Proofs" in the absolute sense are carried out via deductive logic. However, deduction provides us with no method to determine the truth values of statements about concrete objects (such as particles and fields). To establish the truth value of the statements in the proof, we must rely on induction, whose basis is in observational evidence.

Not only is observation the way theories are established, it is the only way they can be established.

For example, to find the extrema of a function you could check all points. The problem here is that there are infinite cases. If you check countless cases you still have countless more to check. Consider a simple parabola that has only one minimum at zero. You check every case except zero and based on all these tests conclude there is no zero. Or you could use reason. Since the point where the tanget is zero must be an extrema all we need to do is find this point. This is established pervasively. We did not need to look at every case but through logic and reason deduced that there is a relationship between extrema and the tanget line.

This is completely inapplicable.

The use of deduction to establish absolute truths can only be done within formal systems that are known a priori, such as logic or mathematics. But the natural world is not known that way; it is known a posteriori, which means that we have no choice but to rely on observation to establish theories.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.

Lose the attitude. You are the one making fundamental errors here, and you would be well advised to humble yourself.

The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on.

Nonsense. What it indicates is that we have an ever-improving understanding of what is going on. Science is not a destination, it is a journey. Physics will never be complete, because we can never be sure that we have the correct laws of nature. The best we can do is form a series of "conjectures and refutations", as Popper put it.

The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.

More nonsense. The construction of a "time independent" theory would requre a complete knowledge of both the current state of the universe as well as the dynamics governing its time evolution. As I said, the universe is known a posteriori, but you are making these ridiculous statements as if it were known a priori. There is no reason to accept your point of view, and indeed every reason to reject it.

History may be littered with falsified theories obtained by the methods most of us here espouse, but it is even more littered with the falsified theories of those who espouse introspective reasoning as the basis of scientific research. You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amount of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this.

LOL

How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.

It is not stupid at all, if one adopts the correct view that the universe is not known a priori. It only looks stupid from your backwards view of the world.

Conversely, your ideas look stupid from my view of the world. Rather than sling mud around, how about trying to see it from the other point of view?

In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.

Again: You have it completely backwards. To adopt the view that the universe is known a posteriori is to be decidedly un-dogmatic. How in the world could you think otherwise? Since when does a dogmatist admit that he is wrong and correct himself, when the need arises?

edit: typo

 

[protonman]

Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself. What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.

For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.

What you people are doing today can not be qualified even as knowledge. To understand this you need to understand what it means to know something. What a vase is has not changed in 10,000 years. If you know something you understand it as it exists. If the view today will be replaced (as you have said) in the future then what you have now does not even qualify as knowledge. In fact, according to your view science will never achieve knowledge of anything in the sense of the definition of knowledge.

What you need to do is study views other than western science. I am saying this with all seriousness. Your exposure to different views is extremely limited and this harms your ability to understand. Modern science is not the sole source of truth. I have the rare experience of being on boths sides. I thought just the way you do. Certainty is a reality. It is only a matter of finding a system of thought that understands this and studying their tenets.

 

[protonman]

OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by protonman
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

Yes.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes.

Which one?

 

[protonman]

You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic. I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.

 

[FZ+]

Which one?

Neither.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you accept any views?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Neither.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny. A summary.

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Do you accept any views?

Yes. But going on the assumption that you don't accept them I haven't brought them up. This is what true scholars do. You are no different than the Christians who quote the bible. You are referring to experiments that I don't accept. Your method of inquiry I don't accept. In fact I have raised an objection to it here at least twice and it has been ignored both times.

What do I mean by no different than Christians? Because you are trying to use as evidence for your argument views that I don't accept. I have been arguing purely on empirical and logical grounds. My only appeal to authority is the conventional reality that all people agree on. For example, the existence of matter. That fact that we can drink out of a cup. That fact that we do not fly off Earth due to gravity. These are things we can all relate to and that is all I have used in my arguments. Common experience and from that reasoning.

Why have I done this? Because I understand that if an argument is based on both sides quoting their root sources the discussion will go nowhere. It will degenerate into what resembles fundamentalist thinking if not become it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, if you're going to dismiss others' posts because you don't accept the methods / views upon which those posts are based, it's only fair game that you present views and methods which you do accept.

On purely logical grounds, the stance you are taking is only useful for defending your own worldview. If the goal of your post was to allow to test your beliefs against the fire, then so be it...

However, you appear to be attempting to debunk modern scientific thought and/or enlightening the rest of us. I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.


Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of being like a Christian quoting the Bible, because I have accused others of the exact same thing multiple times in the past! We've had a few crackpots come through here (such as LogicalAtheist) who were the prototypical example of the scientific analog of a closed-minded fundamental zealot.

And I have asked in the past questions along the line "How would you convince someone who doesn't already believe you?" It would normally be nifty to see that someone appear on the forum, but the attitude you brought certainly didn't inspire people to try and answer my question.


For the record, most (all?) of the regulars here don't believe any of the answers given by science are "absolute truth".

 

[protonman]

I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.

If you don't accept logic then I guess we have no common foundation. My previous post explains my methods. I raised a question to those of you who accept science. No one has even touch it. Here I will repeat it.

Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid. If the only means of establishing anything is the scientific view then you must use this method to determine if perception is valid or not. If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world. If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.

I dare anyone to get the guts to even touch this one.

 

[Hurkyl]

*poke*


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic!

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
*poke*


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic!

First of all your arguments are terrible and I am not going to waste my time on such trivial matters. I will address the first one though.

Memory is not a perception. It is based on conceptual thought which can not have a physical object as its appearing object. Physical objects can only appear to non-conceptual minds.

I am not sure what kind of drugs you take but if you assume something is true in order to test if it is true you are way off.