The Scientific Method

[Erasmus00]

A controversial result, specifically pointed out in the conclusions or not, will not get past peer review.

 

Now that is just not true. Pick up any good journal, and you'll see all sorts of anamolous data on all sorts of different topics. Weird emergent behaviors are observed in condensed matter physics all the time. Anamolous findings in astrophysics are currently in vogue (leading to proposals of dark energy, dark matter..). In good biophysics journals, you'll see data on like-like charge attractions in different dissolved polymers etc, etc. Even in GR, SR the people throwing around variable speed of light theories get published.

-Will

[FrankM]

Now that is just not true. Pick up any good journal, and you'll see all sorts of anamolous data on all sorts of different topics Weird emergent behaviors are observed in condensed matter physics all the time. Anamolous findings in astrophysics are currently in vogue (leading to proposals of dark energy, dark matter..). In good biophysics journals, you'll see data on like-like charge attractions in different dissolved polymers etc, etc. Even in GR, SR the people throwing around variable speed of light theories get published. -Will

The example I cited from the IEEE Spectrum article about a "Fifth Force", attempted to explain the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly but did not challenge any facet of the special relatively theory (SRT). My suggestion did, which resulted in I being reminded about "forbidden knowlege". I read an equally strange theory concerning the anomalous acceleration observed with the Lageos satellites and that author specifically highlighted how the explanation did not contradict SRT.

 

As long as anomalous findings do not challenge SRT, or the "Big Bang" with its expanding universe, one may publish away with all kinds of novel proposals. I am not familiar with what goes on in biophysics and whether it has its own "sacred cow" type theory. If it does, does the theory have the same stature as SRT or the "Big Bang".

 

You might look at the NIST constants pages to see how they identify the conditions in which permittivity and permeability were measured. They specifically avoid using the term "free space" as they and everyone else know, or should know, these values have been measured only on the Earth's surface. They specifically avoid equating a vacuum on the Earth's surface as being equivalent to "free space", however that might be defined.

[tarak]

Can any body throw somelight on Popperian Falsificationism ?

[Qfwfq]

Frank, exact measurements of the speed of light in what you call "free space"(?) are quite inessential to proving SR.

 

Aside from the fact that the M&M experiments didn't need to be done away from Earth, the whole of particle physics could hardly be explained in some other way. The 4-vector Lorentz-invariant mechanics have been tested throught an entire century. It sure isn't just another little theory amongst others. A particle physicist no longer even considers it counter-intuitive even less GR. You can't expect quibbling over irrelevant details to be taken seriously.

 

What exactly about GRT would your suggestion have questioned? I also noticed that the engineer replies mentioning SRT and not GRT. Also, I wouldn't consider a professor of electrical engineering as being an authority by definition on the topic of relativity and how well it is or isn't verified. Putting the blame on funding bureacracy is simply facetious.

 

Can any body throw somelight on Popperian Falsificationism ?

Have you read "Conjectures and Refutations"?

[FrankM]

Frank, exact measurements of the speed of light in what you call "free space"(?) are quite inessential to proving SR.

 

Aside from the fact that the M&M experiments didn't need to be done away from Earth, the whole of particle physics could hardly be explained in some other way. The 4-vector Lorentz-invariant mechanics have been tested throught an entire century. It sure isn't just another little theory amongst others. A particle physicist no longer even considers it counter-intuitive even less GR. You can't expect quibbling over irrelevant details to be taken seriously.

Yes, and all the conclusions are based upon measurements that have been taken from a single point of reference. Can you absolutely conclude that a measurement taken on the Earth's surface will have exactly the same result as one taken 1 AU, 12 AU or 1000 AU away from the Sun and any planetary surface? The M&M experiment was all about "details", and if one puts "michelson morley" into their favorite search engine you just might find a few entries that still question the details. The term "free space" is bandied about all the time without anyone defining just what they mean, that is simply sloppy science.

 

What exactly about GRT would your suggestion have questioned?

I simply suggested that permittivity might not be the same 12 AU from the Sun.

 

I also noticed that the engineer replies mentioning SRT and not GRT. Also, I wouldn't consider a professor of electrical engineering as being an authority by definition on the topic of relativity and how well it is or isn't verified.

I did not state he was an authority on relativity, he is quite familiar with how permittivity is measured. His response that SRT is looked upon as "religion and science become one" is from his several decades experience with the academic/scientific community and the research grants his department acquired.

 

Putting the blame on funding bureacracy is simply facetious.

Are you concluding that those that control funding do not impose their biases on who does and does not get research funding?

 

The reality is based upon the Golden Rule: "Those who control the gold make the rules." The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia, just a day ago, told a NY group concerned with the "arts" that what art gets funded by the govt is determined by those that disburse the funds. It is no different in any other field of endeavor, regardless whether it is govt or non-govt funds.

[Qfwfq]

Can you absolutely conclude that a measurement taken on the Earth's surface will have exactly the same result as one taken 1 AU, 12 AU or 1000 AU away from the Sun and any planetary surface?

It depends on what you are measuring!!!! Of course.

 

The M&M experiment was all about "details", and if one puts "michelson morley" into their favorite search engine you just might find a few entries that still question the details. The term "free space" is bandied about all the time without anyone defining just what they mean, that is simply sloppy science.

I have seen them.

 

It's irrelevant, you seem to have missed my point, which I believed to be clear enough. I believe I even said myself that the term "free space" is hardly meaningful, you must have missed that too. Perhaps you should read and understand what you reply to.

 

I simply suggested that permittivity might not be the same 12 AU from the Sun.

Just as I suspected.

 

That isn't against general relativity at all. That electrical engineer shouldn't say that it is. If otoh he was told this by others, it's them that should get their facts straight. SR, more than GR, supposes space-time homogenity. This is an axiom about physical law, not about the measurement of whichever quantity.

 

I have already discussed VSL and PV here, especially with WebFeet. While I agree that, by GR itself, one might interpret gravity as being a variable value of c, many people seem to think VSL as an alternative to GR and hence view it as "opposition"; it really is an alternative to the geometric interpretation. PV is a different matter IMV because c isn't only the speed of light. VSL therefore isn't even the best name for the alternative.

 

Note, btw, that if the vacuum did have a different permeability elsewhere, it certainly isn't by performing the M&M interferometry experiment there that you would find a difference.

 

Are you concluding that those that control funding do not impose their biases on who does and does not get research funding?

No. I only said that putting the blame on funding bureacracy is simply facetious. Instead of wasting time by challenging not only GR but even SR, argue that PV isn't against them, especially if you could show a way by which gravity could be an effect not only on the velocity of light but on c as well.

 

In any case, if someone is giving money to aid scientific research, they have every right to give priority to what research they consider promising. If the US gov't won't give you any, try the Russian, Japanese, Indian or EU institutions. If nobody else takes you seriously, ask the AFHCWS. If not even they take you seriously, spend your own money on it. Or try to get some people together that can fork it out.

 

The reality is based upon the Golden Rule: "Those who control the gold make the rules."

:)

 

Cool, that one! :hihi: :) :rolleyes:

[FrankM]

... Perhaps you should read and understand what you reply to.

 

Just as I suspected.

 

That isn't against general relativity at all. That electrical engineer shouldn't say that it is.

To remind you what was originally stated in my 09-24-2005 07:27 PM post,

... Recently, I had responded to an IEEE Spectrum article about a "Fifth Force", and the author (a physicist) mentioned that my suggestion was "forbidden knowledge", as it questioned GRT....

It was a physicist that took exception to my suggestion and he specifically mentioned my suggestion would impact both GRT and SRT.

Note, btw, that if the vacuum did have a different permeability elsewhere, it certainly isn't by performing the M&M interferometry experiment there that you would find a difference.

I did not bring up permeability (or permittivity) in reference to the M&M experiment, I responded to your remark about details.

 

I thought this post subject was about discussing the scientific method. I brought up the issue of how a physicist reponded to a suggestion, which he considered a challenge to SRT. I guess I was naive in thinking that the scientific method applied to SRT or GRT, even here.

[Qfwfq]

It was a physicist that took exception to my suggestion and he specifically mentioned my suggestion would impact both GRT and SRT.

If he said that a fifth force would be against SR and GR, he said a very surprising thing. SR does not discuss which the forces are at all. GR offers a way of describing gravity but doesn't discuss the other forces. The standard model gives a way of describing EM and nuclear forces, strong and weak but doesn't forbid there being other forces. With these four main types of force we seem to be able to describe everything but I don't see that current physics should rule out discovering other forces not yet observed and I don't see that it explicitly does.

 

I did not bring up permeability (or permittivity) in reference to the M&M experiment, I responded to your remark about details.

I must have been confused by your reply to:

What exactly about GRT would your suggestion have questioned?

which was:

I simply suggested that permittivity might not be the same 12 AU from the Sun.

along with your mention of the electric engineer and of M&M. I'm still not sure where I went wrong or what I missed. Perhaps you need to sort it out better?

 

I thought this post subject was about discussing the scientific method. I brought up the issue of how a physicist reponded to a suggestion, which he considered a challenge to SRT. I guess I was naive in thinking that the scientific method applied to SRT or GRT, even here.

You might be saying that that particular physicist isn't the best follower of the scientific method, you might even be of the opinion that all physicists are so, but I have seen there have been plenty of publications on VSL and PV.

 

There may be a problem due to misunderstanding but that is ever a problem in philosophy and science, opinions will often differ due to human limitations. A misunderstanding may be due to either one camp not bothering to see the other's point or to their inability to illustrate it, this might be the case either for your point in support of an alternative view as much as for the mainstream objection to it.

 

Personally, I still don't see how PV would determine the geometry of space-time and not just the velocity of light.

[Theophilus]

"Rather than defining science by its methods, science should be defined by its results. To take Tormod's quite appropriate example of nonscience: creationism. Creationism is widely regarded as unscientific, and with good reason: it has no predictive value. There are _absolutely_ no results yielded from creationism. Instead, it simply says the Christian God created the universe. This gives us no results for anything and thus is not in the realm of science, but rather philosophy (or fiction, depending on who you ask)."

 

The "predictive" value of creationism as a function of the Christian worldview is simply the fact that the created order operates in a predictible fashion as prescribed by the creator in order to fulfill his purpose in creation. Hence, knowledge, including knowledge of the created order, is not only possible but inescapable.

 

"A-theistic" science can claim no such assurance, rather it depends on indemonstrable assumptions and logical fallacies.

[Tormod]

The "predictive" value of creationism as a function of the Christian worldview is simply the fact that the created order operates in a predictible fashion as prescribed by the creator in order to fulfill his purpose in creation. Hence, knowledge, including knowledge of the created order, is not only possible but inescapable.

 

No, this is not knowledge but an untestable assumption. This makes creationism and all religion fall outside the scientific realm. I would not argue that absolutely all things claimed by ID/Creationists are non-scientific, but your very statement above shows an extremely strong bias towards something that absolutely cannot be proven.

 

"A-theistic" science can claim no such assurance, rather it depends on indemonstrable assumptions and logical fallacies.

 

Theism has nothing to do with science (they are two different concepts), and whether a scientist is religious or not has nothing to do with whether she is a good scientist or not.

 

Please keep this topic on track and do not fall for the tempation to argue for theological views - there is a separate forum for that.

[Theophilus]

No, this is not knowledge but an untestable assumption. This makes creationism and all religion fall outside the scientific realm. I would not argue that absolutely all things claimed by ID/Creationists are non-scientific, but your very statement above shows an extremely strong bias towards something that absolutely cannot be proven.

 

All assumptions are "untestable" by direct investigation. Rather, they are tested by their ability to answer questions. Science has not "realm;" it operates within the context of larger philosophical issues; is knowledge possible, what can be known, how do we know it, what is the nature of reality.

 

Science does not operate in a vacuum and does not begin from a neutral starting point. One either assumes the createdness or uncreatedness of experience. The one who assumes the uncreatedness must explain the foundation upon which he operates as a scientist.

 

Theism has nothing to do with science (they are two different concepts), and whether a scientist is religious or not has nothing to do with whether she is a good scientist or not.

 

On the contrary, one's belief system has everything to do with the possibility of scientific knowledge. On what grounds does the unbeliever make his statements of fact? How does he differentiate one fact from another. These are all questions that have been recognized and dealt with by thoughtful unbelievers, e.g., Hume.

 

Please keep this topic on track and do not fall for the tempation to argue for theological views - there is a separate forum for that.

I do not recall making any specific theological statements. I simply pointed out the challenge to any "method" of science that operates on a naturalistic/non-Christian basis.

[adjective]

That's not the point Tormod was making.

 

You misunderstand the word "predictive." Predictive means that highly educated guesses can be made and then tested against experimental data. A theory is predictive if the highly educated guess is within a reasonable margin of error of the experimental data.

 

Creationism is farfarfar from predictive. You cannot take creationist theories and form a hypothesis and test it against real-world experiments. With science you can take, for instance, theories generated about electromagnetic radiation and such and predict that if you arrange coils in such a fashion, you can make a microwave.

 

That is predictive power.

 

Creationism, however, can do no such things. It takes existing phenomena and explains it in a fashion coherent with Biblical scripture. And that's it. No theories are generated that we could use to create a microwave or predict that a storm is a'comin our way.

 

That is the realm of science: the ability to make predictions. The higher the accuracy, the better.

 

As for the whole philosophical slant you attempted to take, science can be basically boiled down to the phrase, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. " Science assumes knowledge is possible because there is no compelling evidence that suggests it is not. The same goes for a rational universe and so on down the line. The atheist and theist can both easily accept this axiom.

 

So, we can use the theories that have demonstrated a high degree of predictive power to extrapolate backwards to nearly the beginning of the universe. Someday, perhaps, to the very beginning.

 

So how does religion lie outside the realm of science? The existence or non-existence of a deity or deities is immaterial to predictive power. Thus far, science has not required the existence of such a thing, so it has not included it. Does this exclude such an existence? Far from it--there are plenty of places where a deity or deities can be inserted into this universe--ask any religious scientist. However, that would be thinking zebras, so it is excluded from science as it stands.

 

On a side note, I question whether it is even desirable to include god in science. Kierkegaard argued that if god could be understood objectively, there would be no leap of faith.

 

I went somewhat off-topic answering that post. I apologize in advance.

[Tormod]

All assumptions are "untestable" by direct investigation.

 

This is incorrect and easily falsifiable. If I assume that they sky is blue due to algae in the atmosphere, I can set up experiments to verify or falsify this. As it happens, the assumption is both testable and false.

 

Science does not operate in a vacuum and does not begin from a neutral starting point.

 

Nobody has said that science operates in a vacuum. What we are discussing here is the scientific method and the value of it, not the nature of science as a whole.

 

One either assumes the createdness or uncreatedness of experience. The one who assumes the uncreatedness must explain the foundation upon which he operates as a scientist.

 

No, and this is a typical creationist argument. Scientists do not have to explain their bias, they need to be aware of it. The only requriement that is placed on scientists is that they use the scientific method, and that they apply it correctly. Why? Because it makes it possible for others to review their work and either correct them, find new results, or verify the results.

 

On the contrary, one's belief system has everything to do with the possibility of scientific knowledge. On what grounds does the unbeliever make his statements of fact? How does he differentiate one fact from another.

 

You are confusing scientific fact with Ultimate Truth. The first exists but may be wrong, the second does not exist and cannot be tested nor verified.

 

I do not recall making any specific theological statements. I simply pointed out the challenge to any "method" of science that operates on a naturalistic/non-Christian basis.

 

Yes you did, and now you reveal a strong specific Christian bias, which I suspected would come. Luckily the scientific method is liberated from the scientists beliefs. A Muslem scientist can get the same results as a Jewish scientist and also the same as an atheist scientist. If they let any kind of religious bias into their research they are breaking the scientific method and will fail.

 

Now, the results of the scientific method are accepted as facts by the scientific community on average, but there will always be dissent and alternatives. When this dissent is based on "it cannot be so because of (enter your religious opposing view here)" then the attack is inherently flawed. That is why religion and science crashes.

[Tormod]

On a side note, I question whether it is even desirable to include god in science. Kierkegaard argued that if god could be understood objectively, there would be no leap of faith.

 

I went somewhat off-topic answering that post. I apologize in advance.

 

No need to apologize, adjective. It is a very good post.

[Turtle]

___Staying with the scientific method, here is a few words from Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics:Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

531.05 The now overspecialized scientists seem to have forsaken epistemological significances; they seem to have lost their gift for philosophical thinking. So the focus on the animate aspect of physical things has been continued by the church. Many religious organizations establish their power by maintaining that life is the physical apparatus it employs and by basing their ideals on "living" physical images. If life were the physical, we really could make synthetic men, laboratory animals, and artificial intelligence; we never will. We can make brainy robots, but we cannot make thinking, loving life.

531.06 Science is arriving at a phase of required new comprehension in which we will be discovering that all of the physical cases experimentally discovered are only special cases of the generalized principles of generalized systems__i.e., the vector equilibrium.

:hyper:

[Theophilus]

That's not the point Tormod was making.

 

You misunderstand the word "predictive." Predictive means that highly educated guesses can be made and then tested against experimental data. A theory is predictive if the highly educated guess is within a reasonable margin of error of the experimental data.

 

Creationism is farfarfar from predictive. You cannot take creationist theories and form a hypothesis and test it against real-world experiments. With science you can take, for instance, theories generated about electromagnetic radiation and such and predict that if you arrange coils in such a fashion, you can make a microwave.

 

That is predictive power.

 

Unfortunately, the predictive power is based on a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent: If A, then B; B, therefor A." A homely illustration: "If it rained last night, then the streets will be wet; the streets are wet, therefore it rained last night." This fallacy is linked to the assumption of causation. Event A precedes event B, therefore, event A caused event B." Hume showed that there is no logical justification for such a position.

 

Such predictions also depend on the assumption of the uniformity of nature, that natural phenomenon are the same througout time. So, you predict "If we do A, then B will happen." Aside from the problems I've already pointed out, you cannot know that the B which you predicted is the B that actually occurred.

 

Creationism, however, can do no such things. It takes existing phenomena and explains it in a fashion coherent with Biblical scripture. And that's it. No theories are generated that we could use to create a microwave or predict that a storm is a'comin our way.

I was not suggesting that the doctrine of creation can be used to make specific predictions about particular phenomenon. I was stating that the doctrine of creation provides the only foundation for the ability to make prediction about physical phenomenon.

 

That is the realm of science: the ability to make predictions. The higher the accuracy, the better.

 

As for the whole philosophical slant you attempted to take, science can be basically boiled down to the phrase, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. " Science assumes knowledge is possible because there is no compelling evidence that suggests it is not. The same goes for a rational universe and so on down the line. The atheist and theist can both easily accept this axiom.

Are you suggesting that philosophical problems relating to knowledge to not apply to science. Do you have a refutation to Hume's discrediting of causation?

 

So, we can use the theories that have demonstrated a high degree of predictive power to extrapolate backwards to nearly the beginning of the universe. Someday, perhaps, to the very beginning.

 

So how does religion lie outside the realm of science? The existence or non-existence of a deity or deities is immaterial to predictive power. Thus far, science has not required the existence of such a thing, so it has not included it. Does this exclude such an existence? Far from it--there are plenty of places where a deity or deities can be inserted into this universe--ask any religious scientist. However, that would be thinking zebras, so it is excluded from science as it stands.

[Tormod]

Theophilus, no need for ridicule. You write well but not consistently.

 

I was stating that the doctrine of creation provides the only foundation for the ability to make prediction about physical phenomenon.

 

This is an extremely strange claim and I ask you to take it to the theology forum. It has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is religious dogma.

 

Thus far, science has not required the existence of such a thing, so it has not included it.

 

The way I see it is that science has freed scientists (regardless of which belief system they may adhere to) from being told by religious scholars what sort of results they can and cannot get.