Science is close-minded

[freeztar]

Then perhaps you could say something about how you view scientific knowledge. Would you include explanations of sources of force? Do you see scientific knowledge as including identities of causes for various patterns in changes of velocities?

 

I must admit that I do not understand your last question. As far as scientific knowledge and explanations of sources of force, there are 4 fundamental forces known to science.

 

All the forces in the universe are based on four fundamental forces. The strong and weak forces act only at very short distances, and are responsible for holding certain nucleons and compound nuclei together. The electromagnetic force acts between electric charges and the gravitational force acts between masses.

Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Does science account for what makes (or create) these forces? Nope. There is no way to know, as of yet.

(ok, ok, with the caveat that we know how photons (EMR) can be created etc...)

 

Here I failed to communicate. My point does not have to do with establishing the cause for the origin of the universe. My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

 

Short answer. They are accepted as theories.

 

Longer answer. Science does not express itself in terms of absolutes. "space-time" is a way to visualize Einstein's *theories*. It is not meant as a literal interpretation. It's important to understand that a lot of science (especially physics) works with complex math that is hard to translate from formulas written on paper, to abstract ideas in the mind. Most of us (myself included) need metaphors and examples to comprehend the physics.

 

So, if I understood your question correctly, hopefully that helps in understanding a bit more about scientific theory. If my objective failed, then I recommend the wiki on the Scientific Method.

 

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.[8] Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.

 

Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

[James Putnam]

I must admit that I do not understand your last question. As far as scientific knowledge and explanations of sources of force, there are 4 fundamental forces known to science.

 

My question raised the fact that all we know about evidence is that there are patterns in changes of velocity. It also recognizes that there are different recognized patterns. When the patterns appear to us to be so different that we are not able to see that they might be due to the same cause, we separate those patterns from others and credit some new property, such as electric charge, as the cause for their existence. Electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects, in other words 'patterns of changes of velocity', still appear to us to be so different that we cannot credit their existence to a single cause.

 

Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Does science account for what makes (or create) these forces? Nope. There is no way to know, as of yet.

(ok, ok, with the caveat that we know how photons (EMR) can be created etc...)

 

I know that science cannot say what makes these forces. What I am asking as a clarification of scientific knowledge is: Are the forces real? Is it known that there is something material about the universe that causes changes of velocity. Is it the forces that are theoretical or is it just the cause of each type of force that is considered theoretical? What I want to establish or have refuted as scientific knowledge is that: These things called forces are purely theoretical. When it is said: that gravity causes recognizable patterns in changes of velocity; while, electric charge causes other recognizable patterns in changes of velocity; then what is it that represents scientific knowledge? Is it only the patterns that are scientific knowledge or is there something additional,with its own material existence, that is causing these groups of patterns of changes of velocity?

 

Short answer. They are accepted as theories.

Is electric charge an unproven theory?

 

Longer answer. Science does not express itself in terms of absolutes. "space-time" is a way to visualize Einstein's *theories*. It is not meant as a literal interpretation. It's important to understand that a lot of science (especially physics) works with complex math that is hard to translate from formulas written on paper, to abstract ideas in the mind. Most of us (myself included) need metaphors and examples to comprehend the physics.

 

Ok, so space-time is a prop.

 

So, if I understood your question correctly, hopefully that helps in understanding a bit more about scientific theory. If my objective failed, then I recommend the wiki on the Scientific Method.

I write for general readership. If there are things that are included in scientific knowledge as being real, then there are also things that are not real and are not scientific knowledge. When you said that this thread is about science, it peaked my interest to have defined what is or is not science? If the answer is that things happen in orderly manners, however, we do not know why, then this is an acceptable answer. On the other hand, if someone wishes to claim that something is known about why things happen in orderly manners, then I would like to hear how this is known?

 

Thank you for your courteous responses.:hihi: I will be unable to answer any responses for a week.

 

James

[freeztar]

Thank you for your courteous responses.:hihi: I will be unable to answer any responses for a week.

While I'd like to address your questions and points, one by one, I'm going to ask that you start another thread dealing with whatever you want as the theme. This thread, however, should remain on topic. You have not posited how science can be closed-minded or open-minded, so your comments are not beneficial to this thread, as of yet.

[InfiniteNow]

Enjoy. :)

 

 

 

Enemies of Reason: Episode 1

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (1 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ57X3YhH4&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (2 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zHmYCBgwNk&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (3 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrVeKUs9f50&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (4 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRxKnjn704Y&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (5 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbEGTcGzBr8&feature=related

 

 

:cup:

[InfiniteNow]

This one, too. Enjoy! :cup:

 

 

 

Enemies of Reason: Episode 2

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (1 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt6W7eJ_E0A&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (2 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwZGp2DGLIE&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (3 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmMdnO4qE4&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (4 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eCLI0ZRt9Y&feature=related

 

 

YouTube - Enemies of Reason Ep.2 (5 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yxJylPGrEU

 

 

:)

[James Putnam]

While I'd like to address your questions and points, one by one, I'm going to ask that you start another thread dealing with whatever you want as the theme. This thread, however, should remain on topic. You have not posited how science can be closed-minded or open-minded, so your comments are not beneficial to this thread, as of yet.

 

Ok, I will drop this matter. The sole purpose of my questions had to do with demonstrating whether or not theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence are recognized as just helpful imitations of the nature of the universe. If such theoretical interpretations are presented as established facts, and, the disputing of them as being unscientific, then science may be close minded. So, I asked questions such as: Is electric charge a theory? I probably should have worded it as: Is the existence of electric charge a proven scientific fact as the cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is either a yes or a no, then this would, in my opinion, have gone to the heart of the topic of this thread. If this is not the way others see the purpose of this question, then, there is no need to repeat the question elsewhere. I assume that the question about close mindedness is being presented with an understanding that is different from the way I understood it.

 

James

[InfiniteNow]

The sole purpose of my questions had to do with demonstrating whether or not theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence are recognized as just helpful imitations of the nature of the universe. If such theoretical interpretations are presented as established facts, and, the disputing of them as being unscientific, then science may be close minded. So, I asked questions such as: Is electric charge a theory? I probably should have worded it as: Is the existence of electric charge a proven scientific fact as the cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is either a yes or a no, then this would, in my opinion, have gone to the heart of the topic of this thread.

James, do you realize that a scientific theory is far more powerful than any single scientific fact?

 

My concern is that you are using the common, non-scientific definition of theory (something scribbled on a napkin after too many beers the night before), as opposed to the proper defintion used in science.

 

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

 

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

 

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

[alexander]

The sole purpose of my questions had to do with demonstrating whether or not theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence are recognized as just helpful imitations of the nature of the universe. If such theoretical interpretations are presented as established facts, and, the disputing of them as being unscientific, then science may be close minded.

You have it a bit wrong here, James, but don't take it wrongly, you are not being completely disagreed with ;)

 

Mk, lets establish a few rules for the discussion of this topic.

 

Fact - "Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." (Wiki)

 

Theory - "In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact"." (Wiki)

 

Science - "The effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding." (Wiki)

 

Scientific Method - "The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields." (Wiki)

 

Now, having these explained (hopefully), you mention theories, accepted as facts, now from the above definitions, a true scientist, values the separation of theory from fact. However there are those that interpret some theories as a scientific fact, even though no verifiable scientific experiment can be done to confirm it. I think you were thinking, El Cruncho there (my slang term for Big Bang Theory), though some scientists do regard it as fact, it is far from it, and we have discussed this before, somewhere. There is no viable experiment that can prove what we think, in fact, there are many versions of this theory, and depending on who you ask, it will vary, according to their calculations. As opposed to the fact that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s something that is testable, measurable, verifiable, and has been verified many a times, over and over again.

 

Why did i take it there? well, here's the thing, you can always argue against Big Bang, you can absolutely call it rubbish, and, due to it's status, you may be right, it's only a theory. But in order for a scientific community to take you seriously, you need to have a mathematical model for a universe, which has not started in an explosive fassion from a singularity point, which in fact has started somehow, differently, and after so much time, resembles something that we see in a telescope. I will take it one step further to say that if you merely show that the big bang theory is wrong, through finding flaws in it that describe certain phenomena differntly then what we observe, then you will also, have to be taken seriously to give this a further thorough investigation, to either find inaccuracies in your proposition, or infact move away from the theory, in favor of yours.

 

What no self-respecting scientist would do, is deal with something based on a belief that takes its roots from a book, written 3000 years ago, that has, numerous times shown, to be wrong! If you are criticizing science for being close-minded, for having explored, and calculated out, hundreds of thousands different theories of the beginning of the universe, and you are calling it that, based on something you read in a religious manuscript, and undoubtably worship, then the closemindedness is not in scientiffic thought, and their blatant rejection of your arguments, because they are tired of dealing with fanatics, and would much rather spend time on working on something that may be useful; in this case, the close-mindednes is not realized by the one party that is, infact close-minded...

 

So, I asked questions such as: Is electric charge a theory? I probably should have worded it as: Is the existence of electric charge a proven scientific fact as the cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is either a yes or a no, then this would, in my opinion, have gone to the heart of the topic of this thread. If this is not the way others see the purpose of this question, then, there is no need to repeat the question elsewhere. I assume that the question about close mindedness is being presented with an understanding that is different from the way I understood it.

 

Interestingly enough

 

During the late 1890s a number of physicists posited that electricity could be conceived of as being made of discrete units, which were given a variety of names, but the reality of these units had not been confirmed in a compelling way.

 

The discovery that the electron was a subatomic particle was made in 1897 by J.J. Thomson at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, while he was studying cathode ray tubes. A cathode ray tube is a sealed glass cylinder in which two electrodes are separated by a vacuum. When a voltage is applied across the electrodes, cathode rays are generated, causing the tube to glow. Through experimentation, Thomson discovered that the negative charge could not be separated from the rays (by the application of magnetism), and that the rays could be deflected by an electric field. He concluded that these rays, rather than being waves, were composed of negatively charged particles he called "corpuscles". He measured their mass-to-charge ratio and found it to be over a thousand times smaller than that of a hydrogen ion, suggesting that they were either very highly charged or very small in mass. Later experiments by other scientists upheld the latter conclusion. Their mass-to-charge ratio was also independent of the choice of cathode material and the gas originally in the vacuum tube. This led Thomson to conclude that they were universal among all materials.

[James Putnam]

Alexander,

 

Neither the Big Bang nor the Bible have anything to do with the content of my messages. Nor do I argue that theories can be accepted as facts. They are separate in my mind. What I was questioning was whether or not scientists accept some theories as facts? So I asked some questions to learn what scientifically minded participants in this thread thought was theory or fact. The Wiki reference to the work of J. J. Thomson does not address the question: Is electric charge a theory? The use of the words 'negative charge' do not make clear whether they are a name assigned to an unknown cause or if they are the name of a proven, fundamental, factual, physical 'cause'. Something fundamentally separate from the causes for gravitational effects, strong force effects, and weak force effects. Are they the name of a theory or are they the name of a fact?

 

If it seems that I drop matters too easily simply because others disagree with me, then I do not see it the same way. I already recognize that very few people in the world would openly agree with me. I do not think I ask simple questions nor offer simple minded answers. If others are satisfied with their belief system or even consider it to be superior to mine, then that is fine. I do not agree. But, others do not have to indulge me. I am continuously working on solutions to the various matters I raise. I enjoy the challenge and I share what I think with others through means of my own. My participation in forums is a function of the interest level of others. If my attempts to contribute are deemed unhelpful, then I see no need to continue being 'unhelpful'.

 

James

[REASON]

Is electric charge a theory? The use of the words 'negative charge' do not make clear whether they are a name assigned to an unknown cause or if they are the name of a proven, fundamental, factual, physical 'cause'. Something fundamentally separate from the causes for gravitational effects, strong force effects, and weak force effects. Are they the name of a theory or are they the name of a fact?

 

I'll bite, because I want to see where you're going with this. :)

 

I think, from a scientific standpoint, that electric charge in terms of defining a positive and negative charge is a fact. I think it is accepted that some subatomic particles exhibit these characteristics, such that electrons are negatively charged and protons positively charged. The interaction of these charged particles can generate electromagnetic fields.

 

Through our knowledge of these facts, we are able to predict the behavior of electromagnetic energy, harness it, and utilize it in our daily lives.

 

If you acknowledge that a charge exists in certain particles, but really want to know if the cause of the charge associated with those particles is factual, I don't know the answer to that.

[InfiniteNow]

[alexander]

Neither the Big Bang nor the Bible have anything to do with the content of my messages. Nor do I argue that theories can be accepted as facts.

Nor did i imply that. I merely used Big Bang and the bible as the basis for my explanation, because these topics get touched so oftenly, most people can relate to what i am trying to communicate. Though, i do have a tendency of still not communicating my idea in a format which is very clear for some people.

 

I did not try to say that you are a religious hobo, in any way, if you were wondering that...

 

They are separate in my mind. What I was questioning was whether or not scientists accept some theories as facts?

Talking between the lines of my previous reply, because apparently not everyone reads into the meaning of what that paragraph said. No, self-respecting scientists would never regard a theory as fact, but it's not to say that some scientists don't have this tendency, sometimes due to the fact that they don't understand the theory enough to realize that it's not a fact. (i hope this makes it a bit more clearer)

 

If it seems that I drop matters too easily simply because others disagree with me, then I do not see it the same way. I already recognize that very few people in the world would openly agree with me. I do not think I ask simple questions nor offer simple minded answers.

I try to give simple answers, i just communicate them in a complex and discombobulating way... though simplicity is relative....

 

If others are satisfied with their belief system or even consider it to be superior to mine, then that is fine.

now those are just words of a depressed scientist, i hope that just because others question your questioning and stick to what they have come to believe, is no reason for you to give up on your theories...

 

But, others do not have to indulge me. I am continuously working on solutions to the various matters I raise. I enjoy the challenge and I share what I think with others through means of my own. My participation in forums is a function of the interest level of others. If my attempts to contribute are deemed unhelpful

Listen, if you are looking for reward for helping someone, you may have joined the wrong place. There are lots of people that visit this forum, and lots of questions are raised, sometimes over and over again. There are people that ask questions, and there are those who answer them. Though where in an every-day world you may wreak benefits from that, by being a tutor, or simply by helping someone, and getting that satisfying "thank you", or a smile. Here, you are not in personal contact with anyone, you are like a teacher, behind a blindfolded student on the other side of the wall, you are in the army of darkness, where noone knows you, where noone cares what you had to go through to find out what you did, and very oftenly your efforts go unappreciated, or at least noone shows their appreciation, and that is nothing bad to say about anyone in particular, such is the nature of forums and the internet, today. If you need to be the hero of the day, forums are not a place where such satisfaction will be achieved for most of your effort... sorry to break it to you like this...

 

then I see no need to continue being 'unhelpful'

You are not unhelpful, just a bit unappreciated. I, personally, value your contribution, as i do the contribution of anyone who takes their time to give a proper answer, whether i agree with them or not matters little.

[James Putnam]

Nor did i imply that. I merely used Big Bang and the bible as the basis for my explanation, because these topics get touched so oftenly, most people can relate to what i am trying to communicate. Though, i do have a tendency of still not communicating my idea in a format which is very clear for some people.

 

I did not try to say that you are a religious hobo, in any way, if you were wondering that...

 

Well, you responded to one of my messages with a clarification that had nothing to do with me.

 

Talking between the lines of my previous reply, because apparently not everyone reads into the meaning of what that paragraph said. No, self-respecting scientists would never regard a theory as fact, but it's not to say that some scientists don't have this tendency, sometimes due to the fact that they don't understand the theory enough to realize that it's not a fact. (i hope this makes it a bit more clearer)

 

In my follow up messages I concentrated on electric charge instead of spacetime because the latter appears to be a fact to some people and a theory to others. However, electric charge is used consistently as if it is a fact and not a theory even though no one knows what is electric charge.

 

now those are just words of a depressed scientist, i hope that just because others question your questioning and stick to what they have come to believe, is no reason for you to give up on your theories...

 

Well your diagnosis of my mental state has nothing to do with my mental state. It probably says more about your attitude than it does mine.

 

 

Listen, if you are looking for reward for helping someone, you may have joined the wrong place. There are lots of people that visit this forum, and lots of questions are raised, sometimes over and over again. There are people that ask questions, and there are those who answer them. Though where in an every-day world you may wreak benefits from that, by being a tutor, or simply by helping someone, and getting that satisfying "thank you", or a smile. Here, you are not in personal contact with anyone, you are like a teacher, behind a blindfolded student on the other side of the wall, you are in the army of darkness, where noone knows you, where noone cares what you had to go through to find out what you did, and very oftenly your efforts go unappreciated, or at least noone shows their appreciation, and that is nothing bad to say about anyone in particular, such is the nature of forums and the internet, today. If you need to be the hero of the day, forums are not a place where such satisfaction will be achieved for most of your effort... sorry to break it to you like this...

 

You are not breaking anything to me. I have sufficient self confidence. I do not need the praise of others. The work I do goes on regardless of what others may think. That was what I was communicating by my words.

 

You are not unhelpful, just a bit unappreciated. I, personally, value your contribution, as i do the contribution of anyone who takes their time to give a proper answer, whether i agree with them or not matters little.

 

Freeztar said:

I'm going to ask that you start another thread dealing with whatever you want as the theme. This thread, however, should remain on topic. You have not posited how science can be closed-minded or open-minded, so your comments are not beneficial to this thread, as of yet.

 

You may be correct that I have come to the wrong place, but not for the reasons you cite. Freeztar was as far off the mark as he or she could be. That is what I think. I have no lessons to teach anyone here. I do not presume to be superior in intellect. I just happen to know that I have different viewpoints to offer. If they do not fit in here, it makes no difference to me. Thank you anyway.

 

James

[Cathryn]

Ah, I must be misunderstanding something. It appears discussion of God is a taboo subject, and that persistence in discussing this non scientific subject, affirming the existence of God, is risking being banned, because those who presist in expounding from non scientific points of view can be banned, and accepting an abstract (philsophical) or scientific understanding of God, has met with harsh intolerance.

 

I totally agree NJ.:)

 

Science is close-minded when those 'self-respecting' scientists (this forum puts forward as qualification) don't acknowledge that there are a ****-load of personal-gain-respecting scientists in their midst.

 

Sort of like a Muslim denying jihad is Islamic.

[sanctus]

Where is the problem with a scientific understanding of god? It is just a construct to give security and explain strange things to people. We could discuss this here and it has already been done many times.

 

Also discussion of god is not a taboo subject but it belongs to where it belongs. When it comes up in places like biology for putting forward creationism for example then it is not accepted.

 

You can affirm that to you god exists, no problem with that but it is a believe and not scientific and hence it has nothing to do in scientific discussions.

 

I can even prove that this is true: search for posts by Irisheyes she was admin until she had no more time.And she also is a strong believer...

[Mike C]

This claim appears in various forms around here. Is science close-minded?

 

NO!!!!!

 

Science has no business in restricting thought.

Science *does not* have an agenda.

Experiments are performed, info is described. Plain and simple.

 

I'm quite tired of those that insist upon scientific bias and manipulation of data.

The scientific community abhors such violations.

 

Do you feel that science is close-minded?

 

YES !

 

Science can be hijacked like government are with INFLUENCE dollars.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

YES !

 

Science can be hijacked like government are with INFLUENCE dollars.

 

Mike C

 

I believe your confusing science and scientists, Mike. :eek: