Science is close-minded

[freeztar]

There is not justification for presenting any of the ideas of theoretical physics as clearly representing reality. It is vulnerable to correction. Perhaps, even extensive correction. Maybe even complete correction.

 

Science is amenable to change.

[InfiniteNow]

"Assertion: You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize.

 

Response:

No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will. Fundamentalist Christians are passionately opposed to evolution and I am passionately in favour of it. Passion for passion, we are evenly matched. And that, according to some, means we are equally fundamentalist. But, to borrow an aphorism whose source I am unable to pin down, when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side.

 

Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds. The quotation from Kurt Wise on page 323 says it all: "... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." It is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist's equally passionate commitment to evidence. The fundamentalist Kurt Wise proclaims that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence. As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.' Let me coin my own opposite version of Kurt Wise's manifesto: 'If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.' "

 

~Richard Dawins, The God Delusion; Preface to the paperback edition; pp.18-19

 

 

That just struck me as relevant considering the recent turn of this thread.

[Thunderbird]

"Assertion: You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize.

 

Response:

No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will. Fundamentalist Christians are passionately opposed to evolution and I am passionately in favour of it. Passion for passion, we are evenly matched. And that, according to some, means we are equally fundamentalist. But, to borrow an aphorism whose source I am unable to pin down, when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side.

 

Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds. The quotation from Kurt Wise on page 323 says it all: "... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." It is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist's equally passionate commitment to evidence. The fundamentalist Kurt Wise proclaims that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence. As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.' Let me coin my own opposite version of Kurt Wise's manifesto: 'If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.' "

 

~Richard Dawins, The God Delusion; Preface to the paperback edition; pp.18-19

 

 

That just struck me as relevant considering the recent turn of this thread.

 

I like Richard Dawkins allot, He is a class act.

Scientist like this are the keeper’s of science as the rational high ground by pointing out the difference between science and faith, but also by not directly attacking religions.

 

I think he would much rather discuss science than waste time arguing with creationist.

:msn:

[freeztar]

I have to say that I do not know what you mean by fundamentalism.

When I wrote that, I paused and thought that it might be interpreted as the word "fundamentalism" is usually used. I should have changed it in hindsight. What I meant is that you seem to have issue with scientists labeling particles as fundamental.

 

It is not the fundamental existence and behavior of particles that is being challenged. Empirical science will continue to enlighten us. The challenge is to refute claims by scientifically minded people that theory represents reality. Yes we have Einstein's theories. His theories were designed to agree with empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that GPS works. What is surprising is that the success of GPS is used to insist that Einstein's theories are therefore correct.

 

I believe you've got it backwards, James.

When Einstein presented his theories, it was not a done deal. Many scientists did not agree with what he was presenting and asked for empirical proof. Scientists predicted that if his theory was right, we would observe light being 'bent' by gravity. And indeed it is. Many, many tests have been executed and all have failed to falsify the theories. Nonetheless, the theories of Einstein demand constant revision (the mass-density problem).

 

Do you believe that time dilation is a fact? In the face of the supporting empirical evidence, would it be unscientific to challenge the theory of time dilation?

 

(I've already provided an answer for your first question...several posts back)

In the face of supporting empirical evidence, it would be scientific to challenge the theory of time dilation. Such evidence does not exist, though. But yet, the Standard Model is at odds with Relativity, in regards to gravitation. The unification is currently being sought. These things take time. Science is not close-minded unreasonably dismissive because of time constraints. Baby steps...

[James Putnam]

So what do you suggest specifically? How should physics lift it's "artificially tightly restricted" views to allow for "testing for purpose"?

 

Good challenge! I have written elsewhere about my approach to this problem; however, I recognize that my opinion about that has nothing to do with whether or not science is close minded. All I can offer at this point is to suggest that the 'artificially tightly restricted' view presented by theoretical physics is a low level mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is useful for solving mechanical type problems. I see mechanical type action as being subservient to to a greater type of action that has the potential to produce intelligent life. Purpose is a part of intelligence. I think we need a different kind of thinking that seeks to find the properties that are capable of producing intelligence. Empirically, it cannot be tested for with equipment that can only make mechanical type measurements. It is going to require reasoning at a level that is freed from a materialistic belief system. I do not offer this idea as some sort of clear climatic conclusion to the discussion that has taken place in this thread. It can be ended simply with my contention that progress in this direction is currently hindered by the level of respect lauded upon theoretical physics as representing our most fundamental science.

 

Hold on, I thought we were talking about physics?

 

So you are saying that DNA has an underlying purpose to build intelligent life. Implying that intelligent life arrived through a purpose begs the question, why? What is the purpose? How did this purpose come to be? These are all good things to ponder, but can we ever really know the answer to this? I doubt it. That the case, physics, or any other science, doesn't deal with purpose. Science leaves that to philosophy and theology.

 

Again, I have written about this elsewhere, but I don't think it belongs in this thread. In any case, I wouldn't even try to accomplish such a thing in short form.

 

Of course, your argument hinges on whether or not there *is* purpose. I don't see how you were able to move past this question and assume, or believe, that there is an underlying purpose to everything.

 

You are correct. My interest in this thread had to do only with challenging any declared facts of theoretical physics and exposing scientific close mindedness about physics theory if it existed here. Once we move beyond (I would say become freed from) theoretical physics, then there are no tests about patterns in changes of velocity that I can use to explain purpose, intelligence, and life. It will require logic and understanding that goes beyond the fruits of mechanical apparatus and mathematical models.

 

James

[James Putnam]

I believe you've got it backwards, James.

When Einstein presented his theories, it was not a done deal. Many scientists did not agree with what he was presenting and asked for empirical proof. Scientists predicted that if his theory was right, we would observe light being 'bent' by gravity. And indeed it is. Many, many tests have been executed and all have failed to falsify the theories. Nonetheless, the theories of Einstein demand constant revision (the mass-density problem).

 

Yes you are correct. I think his theoretical interpretations are incorrect, but, the use of transform equations helped him to forcibly arrive at equations that made his mythical interpretation match, at least mathematically, with empirical evidence. But, here again my opinion about this is for another place and time.

 

(I've already provided an answer for your first question...several posts back)

 

Sorry I missed seeing it. I thought you had not answered. I will look back.

 

In the face of supporting empirical evidence, it would be scientific to challenge the theory of time dilation. Such evidence does not exist, though. But yet, the Standard Model is at odds with Relativity, in regards to gravitation. The unification is currently being sought. These things take time. Science is not close-minded unreasonably dismissive because of time constraints. Baby steps...

 

I think that challenging the theory of time dilation should be easy to accomplish considering that 'time' is not a part of physics equations. The 't' in the equations represents a physical occurance and not 'time'. Anyway, I do not think that you are close minded. I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

 

James

[InfiniteNow]

I think that challenging the theory of time dilation should be easy to accomplish...

 

Have at it. That's what people have been doing for a century since Einstein's paper was first published.

 

You know what? It's withstood every test thrown at it.

 

 

 

 

I point you now toward the Hafele-Keating experiment.

 

Hafele-Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Here is a nice and quick video summary of that experiment:

 

YouTube - Time dilation experiment http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME

 

 

 

A blogger whom I follow, who is very well versed in the physics of time (has a few post docs even, and literally builds atomic clocks as part of his job), wrote a post about this back in January, showing how even a trip in your car or van results in time dilation, and you can learn A LOT by reading that. Here is the link:

 

Swans on Tea The Relativistic Van

 

 

 

 

Here are a few additional studies supporting the idea:

 

Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment).

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

 

 

Vessot et al, "A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock", Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204; "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser", Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081-2084.

They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the velocity effects of SR.

 

 

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, p363-427.

They flew atomic clocks in airplanes which remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.

 

 

Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).

They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds.

 

 

Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).

 

 

The Clock Hypothesis

The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 1018 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

 

 

Sherwin, "Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'", Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), p17.

He discusses some Moessbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~1016 g) and depends only upon velocity.

 

 

From: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

 

 

 

 

So, I showed you my hand.

What cards are you holding?

 

:msn:

[Doctordick]

You know what? It's withstood every test thrown at it.

You miss a very significant point. Just because Einstein's theory yields the correct answers to some questions does not mean his theory is correct. For example, the gravitational red shift is no longer considered a defense of Einstein’s general relativity as any theory of gravity consistent with conservation of energy can be shown to require that very same red shift.

So, I showed you my hand.

What cards are you holding?

Just because a theory is consistent with what you know of the physical phenomena can not be taken as proof the theory is correct. There are other problems with Einstein's theories which cause thinking people to doubt. The overwhelming opinion that Einstein could not possibly be wrong does a disservice to science resulting in their failure to look for alternatives which could also yield these same results.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[InfiniteNow]

You miss a very significant point.

 

Dick,

 

I thoroughly appreciate the gist of your point, and quite agree overall with both its tone and implications. However, it seems more that it was you who missed my point.

 

James specifically challenged time dilation, and I specifically showed empirical data validating that it happens.

 

 

Have fun, indeed! :)

 

:cup:

[Mike C]

Science therefore can be influenced, you can't "hijack" science, it's not a physical deity, it's a way of thinking.

 

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.

This says about the samr thing.

 

Mike C

 

..

[Mike C]

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

 

Well yes, science is the object of study while the scientists determine what to teach.

The people in power are the ones that determine what to teach.

But dollars and religion can influence them.

 

An error they teach is the flow of electricity in solid state electronics that ellectricity flows from positive to negative.

The OPPOSITE is true.

'Positive here identifies with the popes and their church.

And the proton identifies with the priests? Ha ha.

 

Mike C

[Doctordick]

I thoroughly appreciate the gist of your point, and quite agree overall with both its tone and implications. However, it seems more that it was you who missed my point.

You could not be more correct; I appologize sincerely. :cup:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

[quote name=InfiniteNow

 

Haefele and Keating' date=' Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment). [/b]

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

 

:cup:

Man that's cool!:)

[InfiniteNow]

Man that's cool!:cup:

 

I could not agree with that sentiment more!

Cheers, mate.

All the best. :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Remember, we cannot see everything even when it is there right in front of us.

Slick!! Mr. Now how long has that been hiding there?

[Moontanman]

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.

This says about the samr thing.

 

Mike C

 

..

 

While I do not agree with much you say I have to admit this is true, very much true. It has to with with the scientists not science it's self. Any one can be influenced by personal opinion, money, political pressure and even a real scientific result can be interpreted in a way to support yours or any other agenda. I am somewhat trained in statistical analysis, it really is possible to use real data to "prove" almost anything. At the risk of being censured I saw a news report the other day where they said that people who used cannabis for more than five years suffered brain permanent brain damage and used this a spring board to give a reason it should be denied legal status and not be prescribed a s a medicine. Of course no effort was made to put this damage in context in any way. Five joints a day for 10 years was the base line for this study. I won't bore any one with the reasons this was flawed but suffice it to say not only was the premise flawed they failed to show the effect in the context of any other recreational drug that is legal or the context of the effects of other medicines that are prescribed for the same problems. The problems with cannabis was offered completely out of context. Lots of science is quoted this way. Sometimes with out the consent of the scientists who researched and came up with the data. I will be the first to agree that scientists can be close minded. Suggest the possibility of FTL and see how many people will actually even consider the possibility (some will of course but at the risk of being ridiculed by their peers.) all "real" scientists are "required" to accept the premise that FTL is impossible. It probably is, at least virtually all data we have so far says it is but I wonder how fast a theory that suggested other wise could get funding to try and validate it's assertions? Having said that I do not think science is close minded, scientists might be but they are human and humans tend to cling to the status quo. But to say science is close minded really does no one justice and insults both the scientific method and the real scientists that follow it.

[James Putnam]

...Having said that I do not think science is close minded, scientists might be but they are human and humans tend to cling to the status quo. But to say science is close minded really does no one justice and insults both the scientific method and the real scientists that follow it.

 

Your right. The title was used loosely. So, I interpreted it to include scientists and their hypotheses. But, this clarification is welcome.

 

James