4 ms·

> How much science do you actually know? I think you need to address the topic, not the participants. > If you seek positive proof of everything, then you can

by lutusp 13y ago

> How much science do you actually know? I think you need to address the topic, not the participants. > If you seek positive proof of everything, then you can never generalize from experience at all. No, you can generalize theories that have been supported by reliable evidence. You know, like in science? > Sorry, but you fail at basic logic. Are you now going to try to argue that scientific theories eventually become true? Are you aware of the history behind that falsehood? > It is absolutely valid in science to ask, "What is the consequence if this theory applied to that system." Yes, and that remark has no bearing on the present topic or conversation. > ... even though it means accepting things we cannot test at the moment. Not in science. This is science 101, and you need to learn it. Scientific theories must be vetted by empirical evidence. If this isn't possible, the ideas under discussion are hypotheses, not theories. Here's why: The bottom line for scientific theories is falsifiability. This is non-negotiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena." What is a "falsifiable prediction"? In order for a prediction to be falsifiable, it must be open to a practical, empirical test, a comparison with reality. No test, no science. Many other ideas are interesting, some of them may eventually rise to the level of science, but until they can be tested and potentially falsified, they are not science. A tempest in a teapot? Before you decide, try keeping religious fundamentalists from teaching Creationism in public school classrooms. They want exactly what you want -- a more relaxed idea of what constitutes science. > However the path that science has taken for centuries says that we should make that assumption ... Science makes no assumptions, it performs experiments. If no experiments or repeatable, objective observations are possible, it's not science, it's philosophy. Why do you think it took so long for quantum theory to be accepted? How did Einstein justify arguing against it for so many years? The answer is that, in the early days, there were too few ways to test the theory. That's all changed, and the only reason quantum theory is a theory are the great number of empirical tests that have been made, and repeated. Feel free to speculate about multiple universes and the many-worlds hypothesis, but without evidence, don't expect to be able to bully people into accepting it as science. And guess who will be least flexible on this issue? People called scientists.

btilly 13y ago
You have, multiple times now, refused to notice that a statement of the form "If A, then B" is one that can be absolutely established to be true, outside of experiment. And that my initial statement about why intelligent people can find the Everett Interpretation compelling was based on a statement of this exact form. You are also extremely free to with claims about what actual scientists think and believe. Claims that are completely at odds with my actual experiences with actual scientists. But for something better than anecdote, go to http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html and look at the first question, You'll find that among physicists who work in areas that would lead them to think about it, the Everett Interpretation is accepted by more than half. (That poll was taken a while ago, based on anecdote I would put support higher now.) Why? Because if you assume that quantum mechanics describes the observer as well as the observed, the Everett interpretation is the only possible mathematical conclusion that you can come to. Therefore either Everett is true, or quantum mechanics is insufficient to describe the macro events involved in observation. Next, you're obviously fond of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. While showing blithe unawareness of how poor a description it is of actual science through the ages. I highly recommend that you read Paul Feyerabend's, Against Reason to open your eyes, and also read Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a better description. If you understand the last, then you'll understand that Einstein's rejection of QM (which was much more qualified than most people understand) needs no more explanation than Fred Hoyle's rejection of the Big Bang theory. Which is to say none, it was an entirely expected type of event.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You have, multiple times now, refused to notice that a statement of the form "If A, then B" is one that can be absolutely established to be true, outside of experiment. I have done nothing of the kind. "If A then B" is not science, and science -- physics -- is the topic of conversation. Let's recap, since you can't be stopped from wandering off the topic. You said this: >> If you assume that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, then the Everett Interpretation is logically required to be true. To the above pseudoscientific claim, I replied, saying: > Arthur Conan Doyle notwithstanding, in science the truth is not arrived at by eliminating the alternatives. Science requires positive evidence -- absence of contrary evidence doesn't support a given outlook. Were this not true, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster would win acceptance through lack of contrary evidence. Now if you want to discuss this issue, then stop wandering away from the topic into pointless philosophical tangents. Mathematics is not science, only science is science. > Next, you're obviously fond of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. Karl Popper didn't invent fasifiability, he discovered it. Science is not defined by Popper, it is defined by falsifiability. Falsifiability is science 101, and it's not a debate topic. > While showing blithe unawareness of how poor a description it is of actual science through the ages. I'm accustomed to having discussions with people who can't be bothered to examine their own ideas. So, even though you are probably never going to get this, let's perform a thought experiment in which falsifiability is not required for science, see where it takes us (I originally wrote this to counter the myth that psychology is a science): Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no? Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build consensus, and no unifying theories. > If you understand the last, then you'll understand that Einstein's rejection of QM ... You are, as usual, missing the point that Einstein objected until direct observational evidence became overwhelming in favor of quantum theories. He gave way before falsifiable evidence that, refutable in principle, was not refuted. The reason? Unlike you, he was a scientist, not a philosopher. > ... needs no more explanation than Fred Hoyle's rejection of the Big Bang theory ... Guess what happened to Fred Hoyle's rejection of Big Bang theory? It gave way before falsifiable evidence, evidence that remains in principle falsifiable to this day. The people over at the Discovery Institute (the source for Creationism and "Intelligent Design") will be delighted by your position on pseudoscience -- it's exactly the same as theirs. As far as they are concerned, you can call anything science. If you keep crashing into goal posts like falsifiability on your way to your personal objective, no problem -- move the goal posts. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification." Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.

by lutusp 13y ago

btilly 13y ago

You have, multiple times now, refused to notice that a statement of the form "If A, then B" is one that can be absolutely established to be true, outside of experiment. And that my initial statement about why intelligent people can find the Everett Interpretation compelling was based on a statement of this exact form. You are also extremely free to with claims about what actual scientists think and believe. Claims that are completely at odds with my actual experiences with actual scientists. But for something better than anecdote, go to http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html and look at the first question, You'll find that among physicists who work in areas that would lead them to think about it, the Everett Interpretation is accepted by more than half. (That poll was taken a while ago, based on anecdote I would put support higher now.) Why? Because if you assume that quantum mechanics describes the observer as well as the observed, the Everett interpretation is the only possible mathematical conclusion that you can come to. Therefore either Everett is true, or quantum mechanics is insufficient to describe the macro events involved in observation. Next, you're obviously fond of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. While showing blithe unawareness of how poor a description it is of actual science through the ages. I highly recommend that you read Paul Feyerabend's, Against Reason to open your eyes, and also read Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a better description. If you understand the last, then you'll understand that Einstein's rejection of QM (which was much more qualified than most people understand) needs no more explanation than Fred Hoyle's rejection of the Big Bang theory. Which is to say none, it was an entirely expected type of event.

lutusp 13y ago
> You have, multiple times now, refused to notice that a statement of the form "If A, then B" is one that can be absolutely established to be true, outside of experiment. I have done nothing of the kind. "If A then B" is not science, and science -- physics -- is the topic of conversation. Let's recap, since you can't be stopped from wandering off the topic. You said this: >> If you assume that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, then the Everett Interpretation is logically required to be true. To the above pseudoscientific claim, I replied, saying: > Arthur Conan Doyle notwithstanding, in science the truth is not arrived at by eliminating the alternatives. Science requires positive evidence -- absence of contrary evidence doesn't support a given outlook. Were this not true, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster would win acceptance through lack of contrary evidence. Now if you want to discuss this issue, then stop wandering away from the topic into pointless philosophical tangents. Mathematics is not science, only science is science. > Next, you're obviously fond of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. Karl Popper didn't invent fasifiability, he discovered it. Science is not defined by Popper, it is defined by falsifiability. Falsifiability is science 101, and it's not a debate topic. > While showing blithe unawareness of how poor a description it is of actual science through the ages. I'm accustomed to having discussions with people who can't be bothered to examine their own ideas. So, even though you are probably never going to get this, let's perform a thought experiment in which falsifiability is not required for science, see where it takes us (I originally wrote this to counter the myth that psychology is a science): Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no? Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build consensus, and no unifying theories. > If you understand the last, then you'll understand that Einstein's rejection of QM ... You are, as usual, missing the point that Einstein objected until direct observational evidence became overwhelming in favor of quantum theories. He gave way before falsifiable evidence that, refutable in principle, was not refuted. The reason? Unlike you, he was a scientist, not a philosopher. > ... needs no more explanation than Fred Hoyle's rejection of the Big Bang theory ... Guess what happened to Fred Hoyle's rejection of Big Bang theory? It gave way before falsifiable evidence, evidence that remains in principle falsifiable to this day. The people over at the Discovery Institute (the source for Creationism and "Intelligent Design") will be delighted by your position on pseudoscience -- it's exactly the same as theirs. As far as they are concerned, you can call anything science. If you keep crashing into goal posts like falsifiability on your way to your personal objective, no problem -- move the goal posts. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification." Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.